-YSR/VKK-SC/3t/5.00

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): And when I returned to the

Finance Ministry, please remember I knew I was returning not to a

bed of roses. I was returning under very challenging circumstances.

I came back to the Finance Ministry on the 1st of August and on the

6th of August, I made my first statement where I said that the

biggest challenge facing this country is fiscal deficit and we have to

grow on the path of fiscal consolidation. I know I was savagely

criticised in the Press. They said that fiscal deficit will go to 6.1 per

cent. The Kelkar Committee recommended that we should peg it at

5.3 per cent. When I presented the Budget, I was able to say that

we have contained it at 5.2 per cent, but the actual numbers are

even better. We have pegged it at 4.9 per cent. Why does that not

deserve any kind of credit? I want to know that. If you were in

Government, you would have to do the same thing. I find myself in

a situation where the fiscal deficit is getting out of hand. I proposed

a path of fiscal consolidation. Any responsible Finance Minister

would do that and working together, you supported me when I

presented the Budget. I thanked you for that and I said so in the

statement I made three days ago. I thank you for your support. But,

that is the path we have to go or the alternative is, do not care

about the fiscal deficit that is a myth-making by some economists

and forget the fiscal deficit. I think, each one must take a stand. I

take a stand; my Party takes a stand; my Government takes a

stand. We must put this country back on the path of fiscal

consolidation and contain fiscal deficit to below three per cent of

the GDP which we did. When? Not during the NDA Government;

we did it in 2007-08. For the first time, fiscal deficit came below

three per cent.

Question no.2 is: What does the Deputy Leader of Opposition

want to say about Monetary Policy? You heard different voices

here, but what is his Party’s position? Do you want a tight

Monetary Policy? Do you want a loose Monetary Policy? What is

the aim of the Monetary Policy? Is it only to control inflation, as

most Central Bankers will say? Now, my Government believes that

while the mandate of the Central Bank is indeed price stability and

containing inflation, much water has flowed under the bridge since

this principle was laid down. Today, the mandate of price stability

must be seen as part of a larger mandate and the larger mandate is

growth and employment. President Obama two weeks ago said,

“My next Fed Chairman must have two objectives – one is price

stability and the other is employment.” I believe that the time has

come for us to ask ourselves seriously: What is the mandate of the

Central Bank? Yes, the mandate of the Central Bank traditionally

has been price stability. In fact, there are many who argue that that

should be the only goal of the Central Bank. Shri N.K. Singh is

nodding his head. Many argue that. But, I believe, my Party

believes and my Government believes that price stability must be

seen as a part of the larger mandate of growth and employment,

and I wish each party takes a stand on this. Let Parliament take a

stand on this so that a message will go to the country, a message

will go to the Central Bank that price stability is important. It is the

primary mandate of a Central Bank, but it is part of a larger

mandate for promoting growth and employment.

Question no.3 is: What kind of growth do we want? Do we

want growth for the sake of growth? Do we want unbridled

growth? Do we want unregulated growth or do we want inclusive

growth that is sustainable? We believe growth is a necessary

condition. We must have growth. It is because of growth that

millions have been lifted above poverty and I will come to poverty in

a moment.

(Contd. by KR/3u)

KR/GS/3U/5.05

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): I am not subscribing to the

theory of the poverty line. But I will tell you what my take on

poverty is. We believe in growth, but that growth must be

inclusive; and that growth must be sustainable. I do not know how

many of you have got a chance to read parts of my speech that I

have made in Ahmedabad. I am not taking names of States; and I

am not taking names of Chief Ministers. The difference between a

single-minded pursuit of growth and growth with inclusiveness as a

goal is the difference, I believe, Maharashtra and Gujarat; and I

believe that must also be sustainable where environmental

concerns, ecological concerns must be taken into account.

Therefore, let us take a stand on growth. I believe, my party

believes and my Government believes we must have a growth but it

must be inclusive and it must be sustainable. If that means..

(Interruptions)... Mr. Goyal, I am sorry, I am not yielding. If that

means we may have to sacrifice some growth. So be it. What do I

do? What can we do? The people who lived for thousands of years

near Niyamgiri Hills say that they will not allow bauxite to be mined.

We have to respect that. If that means an alumina plant has to be

closed down, so be it. We have to sacrifice some growth. We have

to find alternative sources of raw material. Therefore, let us take a

stand on what kind of growth we want.

Question No.4 is on investment. There are people who say FDI

is necessary. There are people who say FDI will enslave this

country; and we are throwing open the doors to the FDI. How do

you then bridge the deficit? I will come to the Current Account

Deficit in a moment. In very simple terms, as I understand it, the

Current Account Deficit is this. And I am using dollars as synonym

for foreign exchange, I am not entirely attached to the dollar. I am

using the word 'dollar' as a synonym for foreign exchange. What is

the Current Account Deficit? The dollars we earn, the dollars we

spend, the difference is the Current Account Deficit. There is only

one way to bridge it. Earn more dollars, then, you spend more

dollars. If you can't earn more dollars, spend fewer dollars. Import

less oil, import less capital goods, import less gold, import less

silver, remain within the limit of your capacity to earn dollars, you

will not have the Current Account Deficit. You have a Current

Account Deficit because you have to import oil. We have to import

oil for $160-170 billion. We have to import coking coal. If you have

to import edible oil, if you have to import capital goods, if you have

to import electronic software, hardware, if you have to import

defence equipment, if you don't have dollars, the only way you can

pay for those imports is to allow foreign capital flows to come to the

country; and capital flows will come to the country only in one of

three ways. FDI, FII or ECB. Among them even Economics 101

knows that FDI is higher in the hierarchy than FII and ECB which is

why we have to attract FDI because there is no other way we can

pay for our imports. So, let us take a stand.

What is our stand on foreign investment? Are we shutting our

doors to the foreign investment? Please remember there is an ODI,

Overseas Direct Investment. Indians are investing abroad. Indians

are acquiring companies abroad. Indians are acquiring assets

abroad. Indian companies are acquiring coal mines and petroleum

fields abroad. That is good for India. Like China is doing, India

should do it. We are encouraging the ONGC to do it. We are

encouraging the OGL to do it. Just as we are acquiring assets

abroad, when the FDI comes in, they will come here to acquire

assets, or, create new assets. That means more employment,

more output, more wealth and more per capita income.

(Continued by 3W/VK)

-KR/VK-ASC/3W/5.10

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD): So let us take a stand on FDI.

But we hear different voices here. The last question is on prices.

Let us take a stand. Are we going to give our farmers generous

MSP? Or are we going to be parsimonious with them? The NDA

was extremely parsimonious; Rs. 10 a year. I have got the

numbers; Rs. 10 a year. Since my friend, the Deputy Leader, is

vigorously shaking his head, I am afraid, I have no option but to

read the numbers on MSP. As Dr. Mungekar said, we have virtually

doubled MSP. Take wheat; in 2001-02, it was Rs. 610 per quintal;

in 2002-03 - Rs. 620 per quintal; in 2003-04 - it was kept at Rs. 620

per quintal. So when we came to office, the MSP of wheat was Rs.

620 per quintal. This year, we are giving Rs. 1,350 per quintal. The

point is, whatever is the reason...(Interruptions)... Yes, the input

costs have gone up. I know that. Of course, it has gone up.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: At least say that, hon. Finance

Minister.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: I am saying it. But that does not mean

that in between 2001-02...(Interruptions)... Mr. Deputy Leader of

the Opposition, please resume your seat. Between 2001-02 and

2003-04, in a two year period, was the cost only rising by Rs. 10 a

quintal? ...(Interruptions)... Did it rise only by Rs. 10 a quintal?

Today we are giving prices to farmers, the same approach applies

to MGNREGA. There are people who say you should not give

those wages to rural India, there are people who say you should

not give MSP to farmers. If poverty has declined, nobody can

argue that poverty has not declined. We can argue about the delta,

how much has it declined. But nobody can say poverty has not

declined. If poverty has declined, it is because it has declined

more in rural India than in urban India. It has declined more in rural

India because of MGNREGA wages and because of MSP. Rural

India today has more income than it had before, one in the form of

wages for rural workers and one in the form of better MSP for

farmers. Poverty has declined.

SHRI T.K. RANGARAJAN: Why do they sell their land and come

to cities?

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: They sell the land because 60 per cent

of the rural labour force is still dependent on agriculture. As the

population rises, the land does not increase and more and more

people burdening on the land and some will have to migrate. Why

do they migrate in China? It is for the same reason they migrate

here too. They will have to move from rural parts to urban parts.

Urbanization, in fact -- we can argue it on some other day -- is an

inevitable concomitant of progress. There is no other way. Show

me any country which has made economic progress without

urbanization. Anyway, that is a different matter.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Just a minute, hon. Finance

Minister.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Let me complete this part and then I will

yield to you. Therefore, Sir, we have to take a position. Are we

going to be generous towards those who are extremely poor by

giving them better wages, better prices even if it means, and I say

this with responsibility, a slightly elevated inflation? I am not

defending inflation. Our inflation is high. Consumer price inflation

is high. In the last 12 months, we have been able to moderate

wholesale price inflation to below five per cent. We have been able

to contain core inflation to two per cent. But consumer price

inflation is high. I take the point that unless we address the supply

side constraints, consumer price inflation is not likely to fall. But

even if there is slightly elevated inflation, are we going to deny to

our people better wages and better prices? Let us take a stand. I

have raised five questions. Why? I have raised these five

questions so that we know what is the context in which policy is

being made. What are the principles that should drive the

economic policy?

(Contd. by 3X/RG)

RG/LP/5.15/3X

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (contd.): What is the ideology that will

point to the direction in which the economic policy in this country

should go? As I have said, I believe, my party believes, my

Government believes, that we must proceed in the path of fiscal

consolidation and that we must have a monetary policy, the prime

objective of which is price stability. But that must be seen as a part

of the larger mandate of growth and employment. We must have

growth. But the growth must be inclusive and sustainable. We

must promote investment, both domestic investment and foreign

investment into India. We cannot shut our eyes to foreign

investment. We must show concern for the poor and give the very

poor better wages and better prices. It is, in that context, that we

are trying to make a policy. Since Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad wants

me to yield, I am yielding.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sir, there is a World Bank Report

of 2013, prepared by a very close friend of yours, which must be

well known to you, which says that one-third of the world’s poor

live in India. And it has been written by none other than Mr.

Kaushik Basu, who is the Chief Economic Advisor of the World

Bank and who was the Chief Economic Advisor of the Government

of India, known to have worked with you. Therefore, should I take

your point as solid or should I believe him? I ask this because years

ago, India was found to have only 20 per cent of the poor. Anyway,

I leave it to you.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: It is true that one-third of the world’s

poor live in India, but one-sixth of the world’s population also live in

India. We are a large country. That is why when we talk, we

compare ourselves with only large countries. And we have to

understand that we are steering a large country’s economy, in a

democratic framework, where laws can be made only by

consensus and not by a fiat, where policies can be implemented

only after consultation and consensus, not by a fiat. These are

complex tasks, the tasks which you performed, to the best of your

ability, in the six years that you were in the Government, and the

tasks that we have performed, to the best of our ability, in the ten

years that we are in the Government. That is why, I said, we

should not constantly compare ourselves with China. In China, I

don’t have to sit and plead with everybody saying, “Please pass the

Insurance Bill.” I have to only plead with two people, the General

Secretary of the Communist Party and the Prime Minister of the

country. Here, I do plead with two people, the Leader of the

Opposition of this House and the Leader of the Opposition of the

other House. But we don’t have a consensus yet. If you stand up

and say, “Yes; we must have the Insurance Bill”, then, I will bring

the Insurance Bill immediately. But what is the guarantee that the

Insurance Bill will be passed by this House? Therefore, I don’t

think that we should compare ourselves with China.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Before you come to us, you need a

consensus in the National Advisory Council.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Let me assure the Leader of the

Opposition, Sir, that when I go to him, it is after there is consensus

in the UPA. But after I go to him, I would still have to go to my

other friends which they pointed out yesterday and I replied. First,

let me get over the principal Opposition and then, I will have to go

to others as well. I will have to go to them and talk to them. But

unless I cross the first hurdle, how do I go to the other hurdles?

So, all I am saying is that we have consciously chosen to be a

democracy about which I am proud of. We believe that we must

have this system where we speak freely; we argue and quarrel,

noisy sometimes, sometimes extremely petulant and troublesome.

But we believe that this Chamber must reflect the plurality of India

and must have an opportunity for different voices to be expressed.

That is something which we have, consciously, adopted. Given

that context, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to do our

best? That is the point.

Now, Sir, I made three statements as Finance Minister, after I

returned to the office. The first was on the 6th of August, 2012,

when I emphasized the fiscal deficit. Then, on 31st July, 2013, I

recalled all that we accomplished in twelve months and the path

forward. Then, on the 12th of August, 2013, I made a statement

about the current account deficit. I would, respectfully, urge upon

the hon. Members, when there is an opportunity -- these are on

the website -- to read those three statements. India faces many

challenges. There are domestic challenges and there are external

challenges, as Dr. Mungekar and Shri N.K. Singh pointed out.

Please do not under-estimate the external challenges.

(Continued by SSS/3Y)

SSS-AKG/5.20/3Y

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): The external challenges are

very grave. Let me quickly come to the current account deficit.

The current account deficit, as I said, is the difference between

dollars earned and dollars spent. In the last nine years, excepting

two years, we have fully and safely financed the current account

deficit and we have added to our reserves. In the previous six years

also, the current account deficit was fully financed. I am not taking

away credit from the NDA for that. We have only failed to finance

the current account deficit in two years and which are those two

years? The two years in which we failed to finance the current

account deficit added two crisis years, namely 2008-09, when the

US crisis hit the world and 2011-12 when the Eurozone crisis hit the

world. Every year we have financed the current account deficit. So

why assume I won’t succeed in financing the current account deficit

this year? Last year also, I was told, you can’t finance the current

account deficit. In the previous year, the crisis year 2011-12, we

had a current account deficit of 78.2 billion dollars. We were not

able to finance it. We drew down our reserves by 12.8 billion

dollars. Last year, we had the larger current account deficit, 88.2

billion dollars, ten billion dollars more. Yet, we not only fully

financed the current account deficit; we added 3.8 billion dollars to

our reserves. So, why do you assume that I will not finance the

current account deficit this year? Just as I made a commitment on

fiscal deficit, I make a commitment on the current account deficit

on behalf of the Government. We will leave no stone unturned to

contain the current account deficit at about 70 billion dollars. We

will fully and safely finance it and with a little luck I may be able to

add some amount to my foreign exchange reserves. Just as the

fiscal deficit line is a red line, which I said, we will not breach, the

current account deficit is also a line and we will make every

endeavour not to breach that line also. It does not matter who

comes into Government next year. Whoever comes into

Government will have to address the same problems. The

problems may become more acute sometimes, less acute

sometimes, but, similar problems have to be addressed in a

developing country. But it is my duty as Finance Minister to ensure

we are not only back on the path of fiscal consolidation, which we

were in 2007-08, before the crisis hit the world, we are also back on

the path of fully and safely financing the current account deficit.

Sir, a number of measures have been taken. I don’t want to get

into all that. I only want to address two issues. One is poverty. I

don’t subscribe to this poverty line theory. You draw the line

wherever you think is appropriate. You draw the line at one dollar;

you draw the line at 1.25 dollars. You draw the line at two dollars or

five dollars or, as Dr. Mungekar said fictitiously, even 500 dollars.

The point is, what have we done in the last 15 years or 16 years or

rather 20 years after liberalisation? Can anyone deny this fact?

Wherever you draw the poverty line, over the years that poverty line

and the new population below that poverty line, that delta is what

we have accomplished as a functioning democracy that is

committed to progress and our claim is, in the years we were in

office about a 140 million people have been lifted above the poverty

line. Our claim actually is, we have lifted about 140 million people.

Wherever you draw the line, the number may be more by a couple

of millions or less by a couple of millions but nobody can deny that

‘X’ million people have been lifted above the poverty line. You take

the poverty-wise population, you take the income-wise population,

stratify if, draw the line anywhere you like. I request the Deputy

Leader to attempt that this evening. Draw the line anywhere at two

dollars, at three dollars and then, what was the population below

that line ten years ago, what is the population below that line today

and the delta. The difference is about 140 million people.

(Contd by KGG/3Z)

-SSS-KGG-SCH/3Z/5.25

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (contd.): My Government is proud that

140 million people have been lifted out of poverty. I am sure, the

work will continue. The work will continue after me. The work will

be continued by my successor, the work will be continued by the

successor Government, whoever the successor is. The work must

continue. Our work will not end until everyone is lifted above the

poverty line.

Sir, the last point I want to make is on the rupee. I have seen

so much writing about the rupee in the last several days. I think,

they have to go back to the drawing board to understand what the

rupee is and how the rupee behaves. Yes, people have said that

one rupee is equal to one dollar. Of course, it was in 1947 that one

rupee was indeed equal to one dollar. Ten grams of gold costed

Rs.88.62 in 1947. Today, ten grams of gold is about Rs.29,000.

The rupee has depreciated. Do you not like the rupee? Don't take

the rupee. I will give you 88 dollars. Please go and buy ten grams of

gold today. We will give you 88 dollars if you don't like it. Please go

and buy ten grams of gold today. If the rupee has depreciated

against the dollar, the dollar has depreciated against gold. Why? It

is because in 1947 and earlier, nobody bought gold, there was no

demand for gold. The per capita income was low. Wealth was

concentrated in a few hands. There was nobody buying gold. There

was a certain amount of gold supply and the demand was a certain

demand and gold was available at that price. But, today, the

supply of gold may have increased a little more or may have

decreased, I don't know. The demand has increased; more and

more people worldwide, not only in India, but all over the world, are

buying gold. In China too they are buying as much gold. Despite

fifty years of communism, they are not able to desist. They are the

people who were away from the attachment to gold. So, China is

buying gold, India is buying gold and gold is today Rs.30,000 per

ten grams. I don't think we should look at what was the dollar and

what was the rupee. I have got the figures on how the rupee

behaved for the last ten years. ...(Interruptions)...

Gold standard was removed before 1947. We are talking

about 1947 and thereafter. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI PIYUSH GOYAL: The analogy doesn't help.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Because you say that the rupee was one

dollar in 1947. I am trying to answer that argument. If one rupee

was one dollar and the dollar was such a strong currency, do your

arithmetic; at 88 dollars you should be able to buy ten grams of

gold today. ...(Interruptions)...

The point is, how was the rupee behaved in the last few

years. I think, we need to look at that. I will tell you. Sir, the rupee

was, in April, 2004, Rs.43.77 to the dollar. In April, 2010, it was

Rs.44.77 per dollar. The rupee was remarkably stable during 2004-

2010. Between August, 2011 and August, 2012, the rupee

depreciated from Rs.44 to about Rs.55. That is when the Euro

Zone crisis hit the world. From 1st August, 2012 to 22nd May 2013,

the rupee was remarkably stable. It was about Rs.54-55 to the

dollar. For full ten and a half months, the rupee was remarkably

stable. Then came the Fed Chairman's famous statement, "All

currencies in the world depreciated because of a hint that

quantitative easing will be withdrawn." Sir, it is not as though the

Indian rupee alone is affected. I was patting myself on the back

thinking that in another six weeks I could claim that the rupee has

been remarkably stable for one year. But, then came the

statement. Every currency has depreciated. In fact, the rupee's

depreciation is smaller than the depreciation of some other

currencies and worse than the depreciation of some currencies.

The point is, given our inflation, given our fiscal deficit, given

our current account deficit, there will be some pressure on the

rupee and the rupee will indeed depreciate a little. All that we are

saying is, we can't allow the rupee to go into a free fall.

(Contd. By TDB/4A)

TDB/4A/5.30

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): We are not arguing for and

against a strong rupee. We are arguing for a stable rupee. We

cannot allow the currency market to be destabilized or the currency

market to be volatile. So, the measures that we are taking are to

reduce the volatility in the currency market, to quell speculation in

the currency market so that the rupee is stable. But the rupee must

indeed find a level given the demand and supply and given the

objective financial conditions. But if our fiscal consolidation takes

place at a rapid pace, if we are able to contain the fiscal deficit, and

if we are able to carry conviction to the world that we will contain

the current account deficit and finance it safely and if the flows

return to India, you will find the rupee is strengthened. It is not as

though the rupee has not strengthened in the past. For example, in

April, 2009, the rupee had hit fifty. But by April, 2010, it had

strengthened to 44. Therefore, my respectful request is please

don’t get carried away by what you read and what you hear about

the rupee. The rupee will find its level, but we try to do what has to

be done to keep the economy stable and growing; the rupee will

find its correct level. Nobody can predict what the correct level is. It

depends upon the objective economic conditions and the demand

and supply for foreign currency. Suppose, our exports improve

dramatically; suppose we are able to reduce our dependence on oil

which is imported or coal which is imported, it will change. Hence,

it will change overnight. Therefore, my respectful submission is,

while the debate on the rupee is a welcome debate, it should not

become a debate about the pride or prestige of our country. Yes,

we all want a stable currency, we also want a currency that has a

high purchasing power, but we have to address the fundamental

issues. The fundamental issues are fiscal deficit and the current

account deficit. These are being addressed, and as we address

these issues, I assure this House, we will find that the country’s

economy becomes stable, more strong and we become more

prosperous.

Finally, Sir, let me conclude by saying that there is a raging

debate between Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati and Dr. Amartya Sen. I

think this debate makes a good theatre, but I think this debate must

be seen in the context. I hold both of them in high regard. I know

one of them rather closely; rather I am acquainted with the other

distinguished gentleman. But, I think, we must understand what

they are talking about. I think, Dr. Bhagwati and Dr. Panagaria are

emphasizing how growth is absolutely necessary for a developing

country. Let us not underestimate their arguments. Growth is

absolutely necessary. It is a necessary condition. What Dr. Sen and

Dr. Dreze are saying is, while growth is necessary, growth must be

inclusive, growth must be sustainable, growth must embrace larger

and larger sections of the people. Nobody can be left behind. The

poor cannot be left behind; the Scheduled Castes cannot be left

behind, the Scheduled Tribes cannot be left behind; the minorities

cannot be left behind, the women cannot be left behind, the

disabled cannot be left behind, the marginalized people living in the

remote parts of India cannot be left behind. Try to embrace as

many people as possible in your growth process. I think both of

them are concerned about both, prosperity and the abolition of

poverty. I don’t think their goals are different. They just lay

emphasis on one aspect, a little more than emphasis on other

aspect. I was tempted to describe one as having a passion for

growth, and describe the other as having the compassion for the

poor. That doesn’t mean that those who are passionate about

growth have no compassion for the poor.

(Contd. by 4b-usy)

-TDB-USY/VNK/4B/5.35

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): But, at the same time, it

does not mean that those who have compassion for the poor are

not passionate about growth. I believe that this country will be

served well if all of us agree that we must combine our passion for

growth with the compassion for the poor. That is the policy of our

Government and I ask you to support it.

(Ends)

SPECIAL MENTIONS (CONTD.)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, we shall take up the Special

Mentions. Shri Khekiho Zhimomi.

DEMAND TO UPHOLD INVIOLABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 371 A OF CONSTITUTION IN RESPECT OF STATE OF

NAGALAND

SHRI KHEKIHO ZHIMOMI (NAGALAND): Hon. Deputy Chairman,

Sir, through you, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of

Petroleum & Natural Gas to his letter, dated 13th June 2013,

addressed to the Chief Minister of Nagaland requesting to withdraw

the Notification issued by the Government of Nagaland in

December, 2012, inviting expression of interest for the oil & natural

Gas exploration production etc. in the State of Nagaland and also

to rescind the Nagaland Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulations,

2012, as well as related resolutions which have created the panic in

the minds of the Nagas. As the Constitutional provision of Article

371 A, which protects and safeguards the Rights of Ownership of

Land and its Resources, has unceremoniously infringed and

thereby undermined the supremacy of Parliament, only Parliament

can take away Article 371A if it so decides.

Sir, the then Hon. Minister for Petroleum & Natural Gas, in

reply to Unstarred Question No. 2423, dated 10th March 2011, put

by Dr. Mahesh Joshi, said, I quote, “However in accordance with

Article 371A of the Constitution of India, the Nagaland State

Assembly on 26th July 2010 had passed a Resolution that in respect

of 'Ownership and transfer of Land and its Resources', including

Mineral Oil, no Act of Parliament shall apply to the State of

Nagaland". In this regard, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of

India, is of the opinion that the term 'Land and its Resources' in

Article 371A would include mineral oil and their resources and the

State of Nagaland would have the power to frame its own law,

regarding ownership and transfer of such land and resources under

Article 371A. So, the resolution passed by Nagaland Assembly is

constitutionally correct and its validity is unquestionable.

Hence, the Government of India is urged upon to respect and

honour the Constitutional provisions of Article 371A in our future

relation in both, letter and spirit.

(Ends)

DEMAND FOR CREATION OF SEPARATE STATES OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND UNION TERRITORY OF LADDAKH

ी नरेन्दर् कुमार क यप (उ र देश): महोदय, हाल ही म देश की सरकार

ने तेलंगाना को अलग राज्य बनाने पर सकारात्मक रुख अपनाया है, जो देश

के िवकास के िलए एक मजबतू कड़ी सािबत होगा और इससे पूवर् उ र देश

की तत्कालीन मुख्य मंतर्ी सु ी मायावती जी ने उ राखंड को अलग देश

बनवाकर देश के िवकास म एक नया अध्याय जोड़ा। इसके अलावा भी अनेक

राज्य यथा पजंाब, हिरयाणा, झारखंड, छ ीसगढ़, महारा टर्, गुजरात,

आिद के िनमार्ण से इन देश के करोड़ लोग लाभािन्वत हुए ह।

(4c/DS पर जारी)

-VNK/DS-PK/5:40/4C

ी नरेन्दर् कुमार क यप (कर्मागत): लेिकन, अभी भी कई देश ऐसे ह, जो

घनी आबादी व िवषम पिरि थितय की वजह से अपेिक्षत िवकास नहीं कर पा

रहे ह। इनम ज मू-क मीर सबसे ज्वलंत उदाहरण है, जहा ँ भौगोिलक,

भाषायी, सां कृितक व सवैंधािनक िवषमताओं के कारण असुरक्षा, अराजकता

व िवकासिवहीन वातावरण बना रहता है और अनेक बार यह बा व

आंतिरक अशािंत का िशकार होता रहता है। आज भी वहा ँलोग आन्दोिलत

ह, िव फोटक घटनाएँ हो रही ह और हालात बेकाबू ह।

उपरो पिरि थितय म क मीर व ज मू को अलग राज्य बनाना तथा

लेह-ल ाख को य.ूटी. घोिषत िकया जाना बहुत ही न्यायसगंत है। वैसे भी,

इस देश म क मीर व ज मू म पहले से ही िवधान मंडल भवन, सिचवालय,

शासिनक कायार्लय आिद जो भी नये राज्य के िलए जरूरी यव थाएँ होती

ह, िव मान ह और पूरे ज मू-क मीर व लेह-ल ाख म बसने वाले लोग इस

तकर् सगंत िवचार से पूणर्तया सहमत ह।

अत: म आपके माध्यम से केन्दर् व ज मू-क मीर की सरकार से यह

अनुरोध करता हँू िक वे अिवल ब ज मू व क मीर को अलग राज्य बनाने तथा

लेह-ल ाख को य.ूटी. बनाने की घोषणा कर।

(समा त)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri Ambeth Rajan, not here. Shri Y.S.

Chowdary, not here. Shri Ram Kripal Yadav, not here. Shrimati

Gundu Sudharani, not here. Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala.

DEMAND FOR SETTING UP AN EFFECTIVE MECHANISM TO CURB SALE OF SPURIOUS MEDICINES IN THE COUNTRY

SHRI PARSHOTTAM KHODABHAI RUPALA (GUJARAT): Sir,

due to increase in various diseases in masses, rising population,

there is an increase in demand for various medicines, which results

in availability of duplicate medicines in the market which severely

impacts human health. Due to lack of awareness about duplicate

medicines and drugs, people are buying medicines from the

market. Further, pharmaceutical companies are also increasing

their production capacities without any control or clearance from

any Government agency. Due to the increase in demand for

generic drugs, the gap between demand and supply has also

increased. As per the World Bank report, 35 per cent of medicines

are produced in our nation and thousands of crores of duplicate

medicines are also manufactured in our nation.

Due to lack of proper mechanism to trace out duplicate

medicines, precious human lives are in danger. I request the

Central Government to take urgent fruitful action at the earliest so

as to curb these activities in consultation with the State

Governments. (Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri C.M. Ramesh, not here. Shri

Chaudhary Munavver Saleem.

DEMAND FOR INSTITUTING AN INQUIRY AND TAKING STRICT ACTION AGAINST OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR CUSTODIAL

DEATHS OF PRISONERS BELONGING TO MINORITY COMMUNITY IN TIHAR JAIL RECENTLY

चौधरी मुन वर सलीम (उ र देश): महोदय, भारतवषर् दुिनया म मानवीय

स वेदनाओं और मानवािधकार के रक्षक के रूप म पहचाना जाता है। इसी के

साथ, मेरे देश को यह गौरव ा त है िक इसम अक़ लीयत की तादाद िकसी

मुि लम मु क से ज्यादा है और हमारा सिंवधान अ पसखं्यक समुदाय के

सरंक्षण और िहफाज़त के ित ितब ता का इज़हार करता है।

(4डी/एमसीएम पर जारी)

-DS/PB-MCM/4d/5.45

चौधरी मुन वर सलीम (कर्मागत) : िकन्तु िपछले िदन जावेद नामक युवक

की ितहाड़ जेल म मौत ने एक सवाल खड़ा कर िदया है, िजसके संबधं म मने

गृह मंतर्ी, भारत सरकार से िदनाकं 7-5-2013 को िशकायत कर ह तके्षप

करने का अनुरोध िकया था। अफसोस की बात यह है िक उसी ितहाड़ जेल म

चदं माह प चात िदनाकं 10-8-2013 को एक और मौत नदीम नामक

नौजवान की हुई है। म इन िनमर्म हादस के कारण बहुत दुखी हंू और इंसाफ

चाहता हंू। महोदय, म भारत सरकार से इस संबधं म सजं्ञान लेने की मागं

करते हुए कायर्वाही कर दोषी अिधकािरय और अपरािधय के िवरु

आपरािधक मुकदमे बनाए जाने की मागं करता हंू।

महोदय, म उ मीद करता हंू िक मानवीय मू य और अ पसखं्यक के

सरंक्षण के ित बार-बार ितब ता कट करने वाली केन्दर् सरकार इस

सबंधं म ह तके्षप कर न्याय िदलाने की िदशा म कदम उठाएगी, तािक पूरी

दुिनया म भारत की िन पक्ष छिव कायम हो। एक शेर के साथ म अपनी बात

का अंत करता हंू:

“वो कत्ल भी करते ह तो चचार् नहीं होती,

हम आह भी भरते ह तो हो जाते ह बदनाम ।“

बहुत-बहुत शुिकर्या, धन्यवाद।

(समा त)

مانوئے ںيم ايدن ورش بھارت مہودے، ) :شيپرد ّاتر (ميسل ّمنوری چودھر

ی اس۔ ہے جاتا پہچانا ںيم روپ کے رکشک کے کاروںيادھ-مانو اور دناؤںيسمو

ی کس تعدادی ک توںّياقل ںيم اس کہ ہے حاصل گورو ہ يکو شيد رےيم ساتھہ، کے

کے سمودائے کيسنخ-الپ سنودھان ہمارا اور ہے ادهيز سے ملک مسلم

پچھلے کنيل ۔ ہے کرتا اظہار کا ّبدھتا-یپرت ،یپرت کے حفاظت اور سنرکشن ہے، ايد کر کھڑا سوال کيا نے موت ںيم ليج تہاڑی ک شخصی نام ديجاو دنوں

-2013 خيبتار سے سرکار بھارت ،یمنتر گره نے ںيم ں،يم سمبندھہ کے جس

کہ ہے ہ يباتی ک افسوس۔ تھا ايک انورودھہ کا نےيد دخل کر تيشکا کو 5-7

ی نام ميند موت اور کيا کو 10- 8-2013 خيبتار بعد ماه چند ںيم ليج تہاڑی اس

اور ہوںی دکھ بہت کارن کے حادثوں نرمم اس ںيم۔ ہےی ہوئی ک نوجوان

۔ وںہ چاہتا انصاف

مانگی ک نےيل انيسنگ ںيم سمبندھہ اس سے سرکار بھارت ںيم مہودے،

اپرادھک خالف کے وںياپرادھ اور وںيکاريادھی دوش کری کاروائ ہوئے کرتے

۔ ہوں کرتا مانگی ک جانے بنائے مقدمے

کے کوںيسنخ-الپ اور وںيمول-مانوئے کہ ہوں کرتا ديام ںيم مہودے،

اس سرکار ندريکی وال کرنے پرکٹ ّبدھہ-یپرت ربا-باری پرت کے سنرکشن

ی پور تاکہ ،یگ اٹھائے قدم ںيم دشای ک دالنے ائےين کر پيہستکش نيم سمبندھہ

کا باتی اپن ںيم ساتھہ کے شعر کيا۔ ہو قائمی چھو نشپکشی ک بھارت ںيم ايدن

:ہوں کرتا خاتمہ

یہوت ںينہ چرچا تو ںيہ کرتےی بھ قتل وه

بدنام ںيہ جاتے ہو تو ںيہ بھرتےی بھ آه ہم

۔واديدھن ہ،يشکر بہت بہت )شد ختم(

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The House stands adjourned till 11.00

a.m. on Monday, 19th August, 2013.

----

The House then adjourned at forty-five minutes past five of the clock till eleven of the clock on Monday, the 19th August, 2013.