Text of L.K. Advani Speech

Text of L.K. Advani Speech

SHRI L.K. ADVANI (GANDHINAGAR):

Hon. Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the Motion just now moved by the Prime Minister. Obviously, even though he said that this would be an opportunity for the House to consider the totality of this Government’s performance during the last four years, not merely on the issue on the basis of which this Government has been reduced to a minority, but the totality of the performance of this Government would be debated today and tomorrow.

I remember all earlier cases where a Confidence Motion has been moved and almost invariably the Prime Minister initiated the debate by giving a resume of the performance. The Prime Minister certainly is free to choose to reply to the debate, and in the beginning make brief observations as he has made.

Let me, at the out set, say that the focus, first of all, in the House should be why this debate has become necessary. Normally, the issue of the nuclear deal was going on for two years. It was last August, in 2007, that for the first time I got an impression that the Government had now made up its mind to part company with the Left, when a Correspondent of a Kolkata daily was asked to publish prominently on the front-page that so far as the US-India Nuclear Deal is concerned, the Government has taken a decision which is non-negotiable and if the Left does not approve of it, they are free to do what they want. At that point itself, I felt that what has happened all of a sudden. But that stage continued from August last till today as a result of which I had often to say that to me it appears that the Government is paralyzed; there is nothing else excepting the deal that is being talked of.

When the Prime Minister just now said that this was a time when we should have addressed problems of inflation, prices, which are affecting the common man instead of having this, I feel surprised that it is for nearly one year that this controversy over the nuclear deal has been going on between the Government and the Left. Frankly, let me, at the outset, say that I do not agree with the Left, on many matters we differ very widely, but on this particular matter, I would say that if the Government has become destabilized today and this kind of Confidence Vote had to be sought from the Parliament exactly, as he said, four years and two months later after it took charge – it was on the 22nd of May, 2004 that this Government was sworn-in – it faces today the likelihood of being voted out. … (Interruptions)

I have said, “Likelihood of being voted out”, and no one can take objection to that. After all, there are people who are making assertions that this is going to happen; so many votes are going to be cast this way or that way. I have not said that. The possibility and the likelihood of being voted out cannot be denied by anyone.

It is like saying, as I have said again and again, that the UPA Government today is like a patient in the ICU room. If anyone talks about that patient, the first question naturally asked is, “Is he going to survive or not?”

Sir, therefore, I start with saying that this situation has not been brought about by the Opposition; not by the NDA; not even by the Leftists with whom I disagree otherwise. Today, this particular Confidence Motion is being debated just a few months before the General Elections are due where the people will get an opportunity of deciding whether this Government should continue or not, even if it survives tomorrow. …

The reason is that situation has been invited for itself by the Government itself. Mr. Prime Minister, I am sorry to say, by you personally. When you started that particular The Telegraph interview last year, you started it. After having started it, why say that only because of this particular distraction – I saw a statement of yours which called this a ‘particular distraction’ – you are not able to deal with prices, you are not able to deal with the issues of the common man? Please do not say that.

We have not destabilized the Government. Even the Communists had been prolonging the whole matter trying to find a way out. You invented the device of a Joint UPA-Left Committee and you had your senior-most Minister Pranab Mukherjee preside over it. That senior-most Minister assured that Committee that you will go to the IAEA with our safeguards only after you had taken their consent. Today we are told that you had said that you would go there and you would go to the NSG, and then come back to them. I do not know! They will be able to say that. I have seen so many statements categorically assuring them as well as the country that we must not go there until this has happened. So much so that even in respect of this Confidence Motion Shri Pranab Mukherjee himself publicly said that before taking a vote of confidence from the House, the Government would not go to the IAEA, and that he was saying that after having spoken to the Prime Minister on phone. This
is what he said. And suddenly we found that the draft had been sent there.

When this Committee and the Leftists asked him to let them see the draft, he said, “It is classified. You cannot see it”. The members of the IAEA from the other countries of the world can see it but not the Indian Parliament! Therefore, someone asked, “Who has classified it? Is it the Government of India? Is it the IAEA? Is it Washington? Who has classified it? We want to know?” All these questions had been there.

Therefore, I am saying, please don’t blame anyone else for having had this kind of Session. At least in my memory, there has never been a Session like this before. It is the first time in the history of the Indian Parliament a Special Session of two days just to discuss whether this minority Government should be allowed to continue or not. Therefore, don’t blame anyone else. If anyone is to be blamed, it is your Government. In a way, you personally, and of course, the Congress Party President, without her approval, you would not be able to take a single step.

Of course, we, in the Opposition. would like to defeat the Government on the floor of the House. But I draw distinction between defeating and destabilizing. It is not in our nature to destabilize an elected Government. It is not in our nature, you may do it; you have done it with Chandra Shekhar; you have done it with Deve Gowda; you have done it with I.K. Gujral; and you have done it with Vajpayee in 1999 when we were defeated just by one vote, and that too a vote of a person who had ceased to be an MP, and became a Chief Minister in another State. Therefore, I am drawing a distinction between defeating a Government and destabilizing the Government.

Sir, I can claim to have seen all the Prime Ministers since Independence; almost all the Governments since 1947 or rather since 1950, after the enactment of the Indian Constitution - first as a journalist from the Press Gallery, and later, as a political activist and since nearly four decades as a Member of Parliament. I can say that I have seen short-lived Governments; I have seen instable Governments; but I have never seen a Government so paralyzed for such a long time.

There is nothing else except the Deal; there is nothing else except the continuous meetings between the Left and the Government; and making everyone think – will it survive or will it not survive. Nowadays it is said that the nuclear deal is in the best interest of the nation and they have been making an appeal again and again to me and my Party saying that we talk about the national interest and so, why we are not supporting the Deal. My answer is that if the Government really thought that this was very important, then why is it that their Common Minimum Programme did not even mention it and why is it that even the manifesto of the Congress Party did not even mention it? What has happened? Has it become suddenly very important?

Mr. Prime Minister, sometimes, I feel that the Deal is not a deal between two sovereign countries; it seems to me to be a kind of an agreement between two individuals and if one of the individuals happens to be the Prime Minister of our country, he thinks that nothing else is more important than to fulfil this agreement. Frankly, Mr. Prime Minister, it does not give me happiness to find that a Deal is being gone into in a way which makes India a junior partner in the agreement.

I do not want the world to be a unipolar world as it has become now. No. It must be a multipolar world and in that multipolar world, I want to see India as the principal pole; and in order to be a principal pole, you cannot agree that these countries are nuclear weapon States whereas India is permanently a non-nuclear weapon State; and this is in the agreement. This is not only in the agreement, but also even in the proposed draft sent to the IAEA; it is on the basis of a chapter which relates to the non-nuclear weapon States.

My colleague in the other House, Shri Arun Shourie has made an elaborate and a very detailed study of it and he has written so much about it; I do not want to go into it because I feel that today’s issue is not the nuclear Deal so much as why this Government had been reduced to a minority and whether the manner in which it is trying to become a majority today by accumulating votes is really right – and on that basis the House should decide on the motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister – or not.

My complaint is that the UPA Government, the present Prime Minister and the Congress chief do not believe in the so-called coalition dharma. Shri Vajpayee was the head of the NDA. I do not know how many of you know that in this country, among the political parties, perhaps the BJP, the earlier Jan Sangh, has been the only one which consistently, since the 1960s, after China became a nuclear power and had its first blast at Lop Nur, has been saying that we should decide on India also becoming a nuclear weapon State; this is since 1964.

So, when in 1998 we formed the NDA, most of our colleagues and most of our partners in the NDA were not of the same view. None of them had this particular item in their manifesto. But we discussed it with them. They said that they did not agree with some of our other points in the manifesto of BJP, but so far as making India a nuclear weapon State is concerned, they agreed with it. Therefore, they had no objection in including it in the Common Minimum Programme which we described as the National Agenda for Governance.. Only after they agreed, we went ahead with it. This is what I would describe as ‘following the coalition dharma’.

Having done it, Shri Vajpayee who was sworn in on the 19th March 1998, did not take even two months to complete the task that he had undertaken; and on the 11th May, we had the Pokhran II.

These are all facts which are necessary to understand. My stress is that if the coalition dharma had been followed this Motion would not have been necessary. They could have continued in a state of paralysis right up to the elections. What was the difficulty!

Sir, they have their own problems. They are not very eager to face elections. At the same time they did not destabilize you. They were willing to allow you to continue but you invited it for yourself and having invited it, please do not call it a distraction. It is a part of the Constitutional Parliamentary system. Every Government must be in a position to prove its majority in the Lok Sabha. It is certainly an irony that for the first time the Prime Minister himself would not be able to vote for his own Motion.
THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): Did Shri I.K. Gujral vote for the Confidence Motion? Did Shri Devegowda vote for the Confidence Motion?

I am not talking about Shri Gujral or Shri Devegowda.… (Interruptions)

Mr. Prime Minister, you should not have gone to the IAEA stealthily in this manner. It is said that it is on auto-pilot. Formally from the Government side, it is planted in a newspaper that whether they sink or survive the Deal is done. This is the news item published in a newspaper. I do not know. I would expect on this occasion the Government to enlighten us whether this is true that now the Parliament has become irrelevant; whether the Indian Parliament gives a Vote of Confidence to the Government or not.… (Interruptions) We are discussing it but even before the discussion began a news item appeared in a newspaper. Should I quote it exactly? I think everybody knows it. Authoritative sources from the Government told The Telegraph – once again The Telegraph was chosen – that sink or survive, the Deal is done. It was told that whether this Government wins the Confidence Vote or not, the Deal is done. It will go on auto-pilot. My own
feeling is it is not true. My own feeling is that the Government of America, the Congress of America particularly, will not disregard the fact whether the UPA Government, which is a party to this Deal, is in Office, commands the confidence of the Parliament or not. It would be important to America which is also a democracy.

Let me at this point say that we are not against nuclear energy. Very often it is being projected that if we are against the Nuclear Deal it means that we are against the nuclear energy. No, we are not. We are not against our very close relationship with America. I may differ from the Communists on this issue. We have no objection to having strategic relationship with America, Russia or Japan. These are issues on which I would think that a country like India, which is the largest democracy in the world, should have a very close relationship with the strongest democracy of the world, that is America. So far as BJP and NDA are concerned, we are not at all opposed to having a relationship with America. But irrespective of how strong or how powerful the other country is, we would never like India to become party to an Agreement which is unequal.

My charge is that this particular Deal makes us subservient partner in the Deal. Very often, the Government spokesmen have been saying that the Hyde Act does not apply to us and immediately an American spokesman comes out with a statement that it fully applies. If you want, I can read what the Hyde Act says. The Hyde Act does not only impose curbs on our nuclear options and nuclear autonomy but it imposes curbs even on our foreign policy. How our Iran policy should be conducted that also is dictated by the Hyde Act. I am not going into that. The Government’s stand is that Hyde Act does not apply to us. I do not agree with that. If three times discussions in both the Houses of Parliament are any index, the majority of the Members of this House did not agree with the interpretation of the nuclear deal by the Government. There were occasions when almost the entire Opposition walked out in protest. These things have happened.

So, today is not the occasion when we are discussing the Deal itself. In fact, on the very first occasion I said that the Constitution of India does not provide that an international agreement should be approved by Parliament as in many countries this practice is there. Even in America, it has to be passed by the American Congress. Here we do not have such a provision. But after this experience with the nuclear deal, I am of the view -- if the Government agrees – that the Constitution be amended so that in certain cases relating to security and in certain cases relating to the integrity of the country, the Parliament’s approval must be sought before entering into a Deal.

I some time feel worried when some of our neighbours say that Arunachal Pradesh is ours, some of our neighbours say that this part of Kashmir is ours, etc. Who knows one day an international agreement may be signed in which we may be taken for granted just as today for all practical purposes the nuclear deal that is proposed to be signed means that Shrimati Indira Gandhi may have done Pokhran-I and Vajpayeeji may have done Pokhran-II but here after there will be no Pokhran-III and Pokhran-IV… (Interruptions).

Please do not justify what you are doing by saying that Vajpayeeji himself had said that he voluntarily abdicates the right to have another test. Let me point out, we have had Pandit Nehru who was never in favour of making India a nuclear weapon State. We have had Morarji Desai who was never in favour of having India a nuclear weapon State but both of them were never agreeable to sign an NPT which was discriminatory and unequal and only putting curbs on us. Shrimati Indira Gandhi was the first Congress Prime Minister to undertake Pokhran test and successfully that was Pokhran-I in 1974 shortly after America had sent its nuclear fleet to the Bay of Bengal during the Indo-Pak war of 1971. These are the known facts. Therefore, it is that we had objected to it. Therefore, it is that we had reservation about it. Therefore, it is that we have all along maintained that if the people of the country vote NDA again to power, we will renegotiate this Deal.
We have not said that we will scrap it. We said that we will renegotiate this Deal to make it a Treaty between equals so that there are no constraints on our strategic options and no constraint on our strategic autonomy.

Mr. Prime Minister, let me recall that immediately after the Joint Statement with President Bush, two days after that, on the 20th July 2005, you had a Press Conference in Washington and in that a journalist asked you, I have the transcript with me, ‘Mr. Prime Minister, do you see any resistance coming forward from your allies and the Opposition in putting the new Indo-US policy to practice and will you seek a Parliamentary consensus or approval to the new direction you seem to be taking in foreign policy? I would quote what Dr. Manmohan Singh said on the 20th of July in reply to this question, he said:

“Well, the Parliament in our country is sovereign. It goes without saying that we can move forward only on the basis of a broad national consensus.”

This was the reply given by Dr. Manmohan Singh in Washington… (Interruptions) Is there a broad consensus? The vote tomorrow is no sign of a broad consensus. If the vote is there, the vote is for whether this Government should continue or not. I for one do not mind it at all because I know what is going to happen after two to three months… (Interruptions)

In the other House so many times a demand was made as to why not a sense of the House be taken. This demand was made many times. But the Government refused to do it always saying that an international agreement is not put to Parliament. Parliament cannot force us to do anything in respect of an international agreement. But I am quoting the hon. Prime Minister. The hon. Prime Minister had said it. Having said that I would like to ask him, are you satisfied that there is a consensus in Parliament about this nuclear deal? There is not. At least I do not recall the hon. Prime Minister having convened a single All-Party Meeting on this issue. He had All-Party Meetings on all other issues; only on this issue there was no All-Party Meeting. My own party was of the view that he had given assurances in both the Houses and it should be the function of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine whether those particular assurances had been fulfilled while agreeing
to this 123 Agreement. Therefore, a Joint Parliamentary Committee should be formed. The Government refused to do it. The Government did not do it and what it did instead was a UPA-Left Committee was formed and that UPA-Left Coordination Committee had certainly been asking for assurances of these kinds and when those assurances were violated, they withdrew support. We said that if they withdrew support, then this Government will not have a majority because the UPA without the 61 or 62 Members of the Left did not constitute a majority. This Government was formed only when the Left supported it from outside and the moment they withdraw support, this Government has been reduced to a minority and a minority Government has no right to move ahead with any international agreement until it first proves its majority… (Interruptions)

Every spokesman from America while interpreting this particular Act, this particular deal has emphasized that by this deal, the biggest advantage America gets is that India would be a part of the Non-proliferation regime and perhaps Dr. Manmohan Singh has no objection to becoming a part of this Non-proliferation regime. I do not know. But I do know this that what when the Vajpayee Government had its Pokhran II, our severest criticism came in the Rajya Sabha where Dr. Manmohan Singh was the Leader of the Opposition and it came from him. He criticized us.

I have gone through the proceedings of Rajya Sabha of that day and there were sharp exchanges between my old colleague in the Rajya Sabha, late Shri K.R. Malkani and Dr. Manmohan Singh on that issue. Perhaps he feels that it is not in our national interest to have a nuclear weapon state. It may be his opinion.

THE PRIME MINISTER (DR. MANMOHAN SINGH): Sir, I think the hon. Leader of Opposition has made the charge again and again that when I spoke on behalf of the Congress Party on 1998 Pokhran test, I was opposed to the test that I was arguing for Non-Proliferation Test. Let any objective minded person read that speech and if he can substantiate what Mr. Advani is saying, I leave it to the good sense of the House.

I will ask some of my colleagues to refer to that.

But the Prime Minister has denied it.

I have already given the gist of it. I have not only given the gist but I have also mentioned that there were sharp exchanges between my colleague, late Shri K.R. Malkani and him.

DR. MANMOHAN SINGH: The sharp exchange was whether we should worry about the sanctions or not. I said that we are all opposed to sanctions and we must prepare our country to face the challenge of sanction.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI (GANDHINAGAR): And we did share it so far as the

Yes, there is no difference on it.

These days, this Government’s performance on the aam aadmi’s front, like kimtei (price rise), bijli, sadak and paani has been so dismal. They thought that in the name of nuclear deal they would be able to tell the people that if only the deal was done, they would have power and electricity in every household. Because of this opposition to the deal, they would be denied light and there would be darkness all around. I have seen statements made that once the deal is destroyed, darkness will descend on India. Please do not make any statement of that kind. You just give us the figures like if at all this deal goes through, when we will get nuclear power, how many years hereafter we will get it, at what price and how much power, etc.

Is it not true that today only 3 per cent nuclear energy is provided and even after this deal is done, executed and implemented, the total amount of nuclear energy available to India would be just 6 per cent and the remaining 94 per cent has to come from other sources? So, let us not try to delude the Indian people by saying that we are trying to give energy security to the country by this deal. So, if to some extent, our national security is somewhat contained in so far as nuclear blasts are concerned, it should be accepted. We do not agree with this. We think that this is trying to deceive the people. Please do not do it. Even otherwise, on the power front, the performance of this Government has been very dismal. If I were to go into statistics, the Common Minimum Programme which the Left Parties have to take note of, says that they will provide electricity for all within five years. Four years and two months are completed. “All” means
there are six lakh villages in the country out of which 2,30,000 are unelectrified villages and so far as households are concerned, there are 7.8 crore unelectrified households.

We had promised to give all of them electricity in five years. The performance is known. It is very dismal and very poor. On the sadak front, on the pani front and on all fronts, the performance is very poor. If anyone asks me what is the biggest achievement of the NDA regime, in fact, I would say that it was sadak. The highways, the gram sadak yojana and the Golden Quadrilateral were the most significant achievements of our Government. It is because of those highways, that our Khanduri ji acquired a reputation which has benefited him all his life. On the fronts of bijli, sadak and pani, the performance of this Government is miserable. Do not try to cover it up by saying that nuclear deal will give electricity to every household. This Government is not able to fix the problems of the common man. … (Interruptions)

Only a few months back, while presenting his Budget, the hon. Finance Minister came forth with a proposal to alleviate the misery of the farmers. The schemes of loan waiver and loan relief were announced. No provision was made in the Budget itself, but loan waiver and loan relief schemes were announced. Those farmers who have taken loans from the banks were sought to be given relief. I have had occasions to visit many places, address many farmers’ rallies, meet farmers. Only some time back I had been to a massive rally near Bandra, near Vidharba, that is Sakoli. I can say that they were so dissatisfied and so unhappy that suicides are still going on because the beneficiaries are only those who have taken loans from the banks. A very large number of farmers, particularly those who indulge in suicides, are non-beneficiaries. So, it would be appropriate if on this occasion the people are told, the House is told, the country is told as to what help
has been extended as a result of the massive announcement which gave a sense of euphoria in the ruling party that a lot has been done.

These days there is a lot of talk about increased GDP growth. It is a matter of fact that our senior economist has said that today there are so many billionaires in the country. Twenty billionaires earn in a year as much as three crore poor people. I would suggest positively that let GDP have a different interpretation now. Let “G” stand not so much for growth, but for “Good Governance”; let “D” stand for “Development for All”; let “P” stand for “Protection of All Citizens”, that is security for all citizens.

I would like to refer to another point before I conclude. That is a point on which we are always made a target of attack. India’s freedom in 1947 was accompanied by partition. Partition on the basis of which area of the country had a Hindu majority and which area had non-Hindu majority, that is Muslim majority. Pakistan was carved out and it became an Islamic State. India became independent in 1947.

But if in 1950, it adopted a Constitution, it did not accept theocracy.

Theocracy is alien to Indian culture and tradition. Therefore, India became a secular State. But does `secularism’ mean that you must have a kind of an allergy always to Hindus? … (Interruptions)

I am not able to understand why in the last four years, this Government has been indifferent and has been negligent of the continuous terrorists’ attacks that have been made in the country. In this Government, in the past four years, we have seen a long and bloody trail of terrorist acts. …

There were serial blasts in Mumbai, in Malegaon, in Hyderabad, and in Jaipur and then there were terrorist attacks in Ayodhya, Varanasi, Jammu and Bangalore. There was a terrorist attack on the Samjouta Express. …

I would like the hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Home Affairs to tell us as to what has been the progress of investigation in all these cases. Has anyone been brought to book, has anyone been put up for trial and has anyone been convicted? To the best of my information, the performance is so dismal on this front. … (Interruptions) I see no other reason, excepting a consideration of vote banks. This is wrong and it is unfair to the Muslim community. Terrorism has no religion and terrorists do not belong to any religious community. Therefore, action against the terrorist will not annoy any community. It will not. But you are always concerned and on the basis of which, you keep on dragging a case like that of Afzal. It is not understandable. The Supreme Court, the High Court and every Court say that the person who masterminded the attack on the Indian Parliament must be sentenced to death and yet the Government continues to drag on the
matter by taking no decision. These are issues which are not evidences of genuine secularism.

Similarly, what has happened in the case of Amarnath Yatra and Amarnath Shrine Board and what has happened in the case of Sethu Samudram? These are issues on which I demand that the land taken for the Amarnath pilgrims should be handed back to the Shrine Board and the function of arranging the yatra also should be handed back to the Shrine Board and not by the Government.

Many of you know that in the earlier regime when Shri Jagmohan was the Governor there - it was not our Government but Shri Jagmohan was the Governor there – he made arrangements for Vaishno Devi in a manner and set up the Shrine in a manner as to make every pilgrim to Vaishno Devi come back from there safe. Why can we not have a similar arrangement at every pilgrim place? When the Government of the State – it was the PDP Minister who gave that order – and when he decided to set up a similar Shrine in Amarnath and provide land for temporary use of the pilgrims, there was a hue and cry of a nature behind it that I have no doubt that the ISI might be there. I do not know. The allegations were that it was the ISI which did it. But the situation was such that the Congress-PDP Government succumbed to it.… (Interruptions)

Let us not imperil internal security. Let us not imperil the national security for vote bank consideration.… (Interruptions)

Now I come to Sethusamudram Project. The Sethusamudram is a case when the biggest shock came. So many, hundreds of thousands of organizations in the country demanded that Sethusamudram bridge should not be broken and it should be preserved.… (Interruptions)

Sir, the country was really shocked in connection with the Sethusamudram case when the Government had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court saying that it was doubtful whether there was any such historical entity like Ram or there was any other character of the Ramayana.…

No. It is not sub judice. There was a countrywide protest as a result of which the Government was forced to withdraw that affidavit.… (Interruptions) I am happy that they withdrew it.… (Interruptions)

Sir, since I have mentioned Amarnath, I would like to emphasise that there are so many States in the country where there are pilgrim places for various religions. Ours is a multi-religious country. We have Rajasthan where so many people come from all over the world for Ajmer Darga Sharif and I recall that when once late Shrimati Benazir Bhutto wanted to visit Ajmer, she phoned me and said: ‘I want to go to Ajmer Darga Sharif and so could you kindly tell Shrimati Vasundara Raje, your Chief Minister there, to arrange for my visit’, I did it. So, I would think that all these places are pilgrim places for different religions. But what has happened at Amarnath is shocking. …

Sir, I will only make one last point. After all, the inquest of this Government will not be complete unless I refer to the fact as to how systematically various democratic institutions of governance are being misused for questionable politics and this has been happening all along. Even cases of corruption have been managed in such a way by the CBI that Mr. Ottavio Quottorochi escaped from the country and he was allowed to take away Rs. 20 crore from a foreign bank.

I recall that in 1999 there was as little a difference between the two contesting parties when Vajpayeeji was forced to seek a Vote of Confidence as Dr. Manmohan Singh is forced today and we knew that the result will be very narrow and yet I do not recall even an allegation being made against the NDA Government that you have done this or done that or you have misused the office. There was nothing of that kind, but see the kind of reports that have appeared in the past fortnight as to what has been happening. In fact, I saw a cartoon in The Hindu saying that nuclear power seems to be having the need of horse power meaning horse trading is going on.

Sir, the CBI has been misused. I would say that it is not merely the Aam admi who has been oppressed under price rise, but also the farmers who have been forced by the situation to commit suicide again and again. In fact, I would like someone from the Government to tell us as to what are the steps that have been taken in respect of agriculture, in respect of irrigation in the last four years and what has been done in the interests of farmers in the country.

It is not merely this Government or that Government, it is not merely one Party or another which has got a bad name by the happenings of the past fortnight. Indian democracy has become saline and therefore, if you take into account the performance of the four years of this Government as well as the happenings of the last fortnight to convert this minority Government into a majority Government, it will not succeed perhaps even then. But these things should be borne in mind when we cast our vote tomorrow evening and exercise our vote. All this is being done only to live 100 days more.

What would happen if the Government, after the withdrawal of support by the Left on the basis of which their Government was going on, said, all right, we go to the people and we will decide. They could have done it. But instead they forced this kind of trial of strength. Let all these factors be taken into account, misuse of Government institutions to convert this minority into a majority and four years of misrule by this Government. All these factors if you keep in mind, I am sure…

I am concluding because I know that irrespective of what happens today or tomorrow, we have to go to the people and the people’s verdict will be very clear.

(ends)