People's Democracy

LAST FORTNIGHT IN PARLIAMENT

Subhas Ray

On December 7 came to an end the winter session of parliament that was the shortest in recent years, spread over 90 hours only. While a discussion took place on the Indo-US nuclear deal after much dillydallying, the session lost much time on the Nandigram issue, a state subject. In West Bengal, ruled by the Left Front for 30 years, reactionary forces of all hues joined hands against the CPI(M). But the interventions made by the CPI(M) members, viz Sitaram Yechury and Brinda Karat in Rajya Sabha and Md Salim and Basudeb Acharia in Lok Sabha unmasked the real motive of these forces. The submissions by these members have already been published in these pages. 

The session passed some of the bills like the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Union Territories) Bill; the Indian Boilers (Amendment) Bill; the Sashastra Seema Bal Bill; the AIIMS and PGIMER (Amendment) Bill; the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Bill; the Payment and Settlement Systems Bill 2007; the Tyre Corporation of India Ltd (Disinvestment of Ownership) Bill;  the Payment of Bonus Bill; the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University Bill; the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Bill; and the Armed Forces Tribunal Bill.

The much-awaited debate on Indo-US nuclear deal took place in Lok Sabha on November 29, with a majority of members saying the deal was unacceptable.  Dissatisfied with the foreign minister’s reply, CPI(M) members walked out on the day.  What was interesting was that, with its own axe to grind, the BJP also said the agreement was unacceptable and walked out.

MAJORITY AGAINST INDO-US DEAL

Apart from the Left speakers, Ram Gopal Yadav (SP) also said the deal had created apprehensions regarding our sovereignty. He insisted that the government spell out if we would have to follow the American dictates after this agreement and whether we have to share information with them about our nuclear reactors. 

Apprehensions also gripped UPA partners. Devendra Prasad Yadav (RJD) said there were apprehensions that the deal would lead to renunciation of non-alignment, adversely affect our foreign policy and sovereignty, and snatch our right to conduct nuclear tests. He wanted a clarification from the prime minister or external affairs minister whether we are in a position to put an alternative system in place, eg hydroelectric power.

Mohan Rawale (Shiv Sena) opined that the treaty had turned out to be quite controversial. Rajiv Ranjan Singh (JD-U) said the parliament must reach a consensus because the majority of UPA partners were against it. Dr C Krishnan (MDMK) said the agreement in its present form was not conducive to our country’s betterment and progress. M Shivanna (JD-S) said we might get uranium at a cheaper rate but we must not yield to the dictates of a foreign country. He urged the government to uphold our independent foreign policy and take all parties into confidence. Asaduddin Owaisi (MIM) opposed strategic partnership with the US and the paradigm shift. Ramdas Athawale (RPI-A) suggested that the government listen to the communist suggestions. D K Audikesavulu (TDP) said the 123 agreement would impinge on our sovereignty.

The UNPA has made its opposition to the nuclear deal known and alleged that the government has mortgaged the country’s sovereignty.

This reflects the sentiment of a majority of the members against the Indo-US nuclear deal. 

THE CPI(M)’S INTERVENTION

Initiating the debate in Lok Sabha, the CPI(M)’s Rupchand Pal launched a scathing attack on the government and the BJP, and tore the former’s arguments to shreds. He said we had demanded a discussion in the last session but were denied because of interruptions by the BJP. We may well understand the reason if they are confused about their stand vis-à-vis the deal. Firstly, it is they who had initiated it. BJP leader L K Advani had said at a point, “We are in full agreement with the deal.” The BJP said it has no objection to a strategic alliance with the US. In the past, 14 rounds of secret discussions had taken place between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott in different places and certain commitments were made without taking into account our consensual foreign policy and national interests. But we expected something different from the UPA government. 

Pal said immediately after the joint statement of July 18, 2005, the Left had said we could not be a party to it. We had serious reservations about various provisions in the agreement. Then, in December 2006, in view of the Hyde Act provisions, we asked the government an assurance about nine areas, and the prime minister assured us on all these points. But to our dismay, we found that the Hyde Act went against most of these assurances in relation to technology transfer, fuel supply, congruence of Indian foreign policy with US foreign policy, specific reference to Iran, uninterrupted fuel supply etc. Transfer of sensitive technology as well as duel use technology was denied. The assurance on fuel supply was very vague. It was said that the deal would get terminated if the government of India went in for a nuclear test, and in that case the fuel supplied, the reactor equipment and everything would have to be returned.

In Asia, Pal pointed out, the US wants a new regional structure to contain China and needs India for a NATO like alliance for Asia. They want us to oppose Iran and we are unfortunately doing it. 

As for the need of energy, the Left is not denying it. But have they got a national policy on the energy mix? Nothing of the sort! As for the deal, the US’s ailing nuclear industry would be rejuvenated and more jobs will be created there. But it will be at India’s cost. What the Left wants is an appropriate and judicious energy mix in accordance with the country’s interests. 

The speaker said the 123 agreement would be governed by the Hyde Act and US law would prevail if there is any dispute. The relationship between the two is important.  The Hyde Act specifically mentions that the US will stop any other country from supplying the fuel in such a scenario. That means we would be nowhere. That is the point we have been making --- there is no guarantee that our nuclear reactors will have uninterrupted fuel supply. While the government’s agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency would be perpetual, fuel supply is not going to be in perpetuity.  It is conditional. It depends upon a whole gamut of extraneous issues.

Next, nuclear waste management is a big problem for the west. We have certain advantages in this regard, but putting the fast breeder reactors under the IAEA supervision and safeguards won’t help us.

Pal said India has done after 60 years of independence what it had never done. It is opening up to their banking, insurance and foreign retail giants. The government is not applying its mind to the dangers of the deal itself. At the same time, the BJP’s patriotism is also in question. But the friends of the mighty America in our country must realise that this is the age of anti-imperialism. Countries of Latin America, like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador and Bolivia, are opposing America. Russia is standing up against threats, which it could not do a few years back. It is a changed world. In the United Kingdom, those who supported America are out of power. The people are realising who the real enemy of civilisation is.

At the end, Pal appealed that the government take the sense of the house on this deal and desist from proceeding further as a majority of the house is against it.

Tarit Baran Topdar, CPI(M), joined the discussion, strongly saying that it was not an agreement between George Bush and Dr Manmohan Singh but between two countries.  He asked the government to win the confidence of the people and parliament instead of rushing through this matter. The American president will abide by the American law and submit an annual report on our nuclear material. In the deal, we have been treated as a junior partner. He asked: Can it be called energy security when it is dependent on foreign supply? Security and dependence on foreign countries are two contradictory terms and cannot go together, he emphasised. He also warned that the nuclear agreement will deter the progress of thorium technology, in which respect we have moved a long way. Also note that the Hyde Act is an enabling act and would make India NPT complaint. India has been in favour of complete and total disarmament, not partial disarmament, and it is totally wrong if the prime minister has promised to create an NPT complaint environment.

FOREST ACT

On November 29, Rajya Sabha witnessed noisy scenes over the delay in notifying the rules under the Forest Rights Act.  On a question from the CPI(M)’s Matilal Sarkar about the forest dwellers’ rights to the forest land and forest produce, the reply from the environment & forest minister S Ragupathy infuriated the CPI(M) members. Brinda Karat pointed out that his ministry was not competent to give a reply in the matter that pertained to the tribal affairs ministry. She asked how the government could implement an act, passed by parliament more than a year ago, without notifying the rules? This is subversion of the will of parliament, she charged. With the government failing to respond to her pointed question, CPI(M) members led by her walked out. 

Matilal Sarkar strongly condemned the brutal attack on adivasi demonstrators and heinous barbarity committed against women in broad daylight on November 24 at Guwahati, and sought clarification on the home minister’s statement regarding it. He decried the vandalism committed by a section of demonstrators against the civilians and their properties but endorsed their democratic right to demonstrate for their legitimate demands. He urged the government to concede the demand of declaring these adivasis as ST. The question is: Why are they demanding ST status? During the middle of the 19th century, these people were brought in from different parts of the country as tea garden workers --- from Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and other areas. In their respective states, they are considered as ST but in Assam they are not treated as such. This is double standard. The All Adivasi Students’ Association of Assam has the right to approach the government with its demands. But the district magistrate refused them permission to hold a demonstration. This was the reason of untoward happenings. The minister said the demonstrators were attacked as a part of retaliation. Can the government allow retaliation, he asked. It is shocking that the retaliation was very brutal --- a woman was stripped in public. We are also worried about the fate of the missing adivasi boys and girls; we are afraid that they might have been killed. So the government must come up with the correct number of casualties that took place. In conclusion, Sarkar demanded that the culprits be brought to book immediately.

OTHER ISSUES

Lok Sabha has passed the demands for supplementary grants (general). From the CPI(M) side, P Karunakaran and Sudhangshu Seal participated in the discussion. Supporting the demands, Karunakaran said there are crores of people suffering from malnutrition, 72 percent of the rural people are suffering from water-borne diseases due to lack of potable water, 75 percent people are living in small huts with no amenities. Six crore people have a monthly income of only Rs 322. What is the use of showing the growth and development that cannot provide the people food, drinking water, sanitation and housing? Is the development meant for a miniscule section? The government is unable to control the price rise; there is a failure of the food policy. The public distribution system (PDS) is being dismantled while Kerala shows that the rise in prices can be arrested if the PDS is strengthened. Farmers are committing suicide even after announcement of packages in some states.

During the course of his intervention, the member raised many issues like procurement prices, non-availability of storage facilities for perishable goods like vegetables and fruits, ineffective implementation of the NREGA etc. These are issues demanding the central government’s intervention. Imports should have some restrictions and quality control. Public investment in Kerala is gradually reducing. Kerala’s long coastline also requires special assistance for its security.

Sudhangshu Seal said 70 percent of our population lives in rural India and the thrust should have been on rural areas and agriculture. We need cold storage facilities in all areas. Infrastructure facilities should be provided to market our products domestically as well as globally. We can have a plenty of value added products from our agriculture but it requires more land and more food processing units, and a little help and cooperation to these units will create a tremendous possibility of export.  There must also be steps for the artisans, carpenters, mechanics and others so that they excel in their trade and create valuable products. They need finance from rural banks but the latter are not getting any attention comparable to the nationalised banks. This factor should also be looked into.

In Rajya Sabha, Matilal Sarkar drew attention to the BSNL’s order to cut off satellite connection to the telecommunication services in Agartala, Khowai, Kamalpur, Belonia and Sabroom in Tripura --- places with immense importance from a strategic point of view. The decision has evoked serious reactions from different quarters. As a matter of fact, the capacity of microwave system in the state is grossly inadequate. The optical fibre connection is also not stable; it reportedly comes from far-away Silchar. This line is always prone to disruption due to landslides and the extremists. As NH-44, the lifeline of the state, is being made four-lane and broadened, the optical fibre line faces frequent disturbances. So the satellite connection is a safer alternative. It is noteworthy that the state is surrounded by Bangladesh on three sides. Moreover, the state assembly election is in the offing. Hence the teleservices must be maintained disturbance free. Sarkar urged the government to withhold the decision of withdrawing satellite link in Tripura and strengthen the present system to cope with the frequency warranted ahead.

In the same house, Tapan Kumar Sen, CPI(M), drew attention to the news of recent cabinet approval to the financial restructuring of premier public sector engineering company, Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Ltd (BHPV). The package envisages waiving off its loans and liabilities to the government and takeover by BHEL with an investment of Rs 275 crore. But, to our surprise, the concerned press note of November 26 was surreptitiously withdrawn from the PIB’s website. Now it is in the air that the issue of waiver of the BHPV’s loans and liabilities would be renegotiated between the ministry of heavy industries and the ministry of finance. On inquiry, we came to know that the release was withdrawn after instructions from the above. The manner it took place, lacks transparency and smacks of a conspiracy. Sen insisted that the government spell out the reasons for the withdrawal, and asked when the said cabinet approval will be implemented.

PAYMENT OF BONUS BILL

The CPI(M)’s Santasri Chatterjee, M Baburao, P Rajendran and K S Manoj in Lok Sabha and K Chandran Pillai in Rajya Sabha supported the Payment of Bonus Bill but said it had got its limitations. Santasri Chatterjee referred to the widening gap between the actual wages and living wages, saying it is necessary that minimum bonus is fixed at the rate of 10 and not at 8.33 percent. Bringing the contract workers into the ambit of the bill is also necessary. This time a good thing about the bill is that construction workers have been brought into the ambit of this act. The member demanded that the minimum bonus be fixed at Rs 1000 instead of Rs 100. He also pointed out certain anomalies in regard to central and state government employees, and asked the labour minister to take up their case so that no unjustified decision is imposed upon them. It is time for a comprehensive amendment in consultation with the central trade unions and other stakeholders so that unorganised sector are also covered by the act.

The member referred to the case of West Bengal where lakhs of jute workers were deprived of bonus for a long time as the act was not amended. Though an ordinance was promulgated and the government of West Bengal urged the jute barons’ associations to honour it, nothing came out. He apprehended that the jute barons’ obstinacy might force the jute workers to go on strike again.   

M Baburao and K S Manoj said bonus is the hard-won right of the working class. While welcoming the amendments proposed in sections 2, 12 and 32, they said this act was not being implemented at the state level, nor did it cover all workers. Its coverage should be extended to other areas also to include the building workers, contract workers in various fields, bidi workers, hamals, home-based workers and auto workers. As private employers do not care for the act, the ministry has to take some strong steps for its implementation.

Supporting the bill, K Chandran Pillai said the right of the working class to bonus must be respected. A comprehensive amendment to the act is needed. Bonus is deferred wage and no charity from the government or industrialists. Prescribing Rs 10,000 as maximum ceiling of the bonus is not a valid move; one month’s salary has to be considered for deciding minimum bonus. All the workers or employees covered by the Industrial Disputes Act ought to get bonus, irrespective of their salaries. Corporate houses are making huge profits and the surplus must be shared with the workers. There is a 20 percent cap to the productivity linked bonus. It is a disincentive to the process of production and productivity. Therefore, the ceiling should be removed. Also, the benefit must be extended to the defence sector workers, central government employees etc. The member concluded with the demand to bring the unorganised sector workers into the ambit of the act and a comprehensive bill for the purpose.

TYRE CORPORATION DISINVESTMENT

The Tyre Corporation of India Ltd (Disinvestment of Ownership) Bill has been passed by the parliament. From the CPI(M) side in Rajya Sabha, Tapan Sen asked the minister to clarify as to why the government of India should pump money into a disinvested industry. Referring to successive reports of CAG, he lashed out at the earlier NDA government’s misdeed of looting the exchequer through the cases of undervaluation during the process of privatisation of public sector units. Not only that; before selling a public sector unit, that government used to pump money there so that the private sector buyers need not spend anything.

Automobile tyre is a product whose market has consistently been expanding in the last two decades. It is a shocking revelation that a viable public sector unit has been slow-poisoned by successive governments to reach a stage of no-return. This is really a tragedy and the bill was an example of the conspiracy to finish the public sector. He accused the government of misleading the house time and again. The minister had said the Tyre Corporation would be revived within the public sector framework. But, in May 2007, the BRPSE recommended its disinvestment and, after three months, the parliament was informed that the BRPSE had recommended its revival within the public sector framework. Sen wanted to know which version was correct. At no point of time had the BIFR recommended its disinvestment, he reminded, charging that it is the government that has been pushing it. Since 1984, no investment was made in this corporation, no modernisation done, and it was purposely pushed into sickness despite the fact of a booming tyre market. 

Sen concluded with the demand for continued protection to the employees till their retirement.

MISUSE OF FUNDS IN NREGA

During a short duration discussion in Rajya Sabha regarding the misuse of funds provided under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the CPI(M)’s Brinda Karat said all of us want that the benefits of the money allocated to a scheme must reach the intended persons and that the money is rightly utilised. It is strange that, on the one hand, 77 percent villagers earn less than Rs 20 a day and, on the other hand, the demand for employment under this scheme is decreasing. Can we say that all problems have been solved and the people no longer need employment? We have to find out where the defect lies. As far as the demand is concerned, she suggested that let the tea gardens in North Bengal, which are facing closure, be included in it and get the work done with the money from this scheme. The women there have to spend 6-7 hours on getting fodder and fuel, have to climb hills and then carry it all back to their homes. 

Brinda Karat said that in the name of creation of productive assets, the scheme is being made too narrow to give relief to the people. In this connection she cited her visit of the flood ravaged areas in Bihar. On being asked whether the construction of roadside houses for flood victims was under the NREGA, the chief minister had told that the central government was asking him to prepare a special project first for approval. The criteria of productive work need to be changed. There need to be a monitoring process but not in this form. The member asked the government to remove the discrepancies in the rules and give relief to the poor people by way of enhancing the amount under this programme for the next year.

SECURITY PERSONNEL

Through a special mention in Lok Sabha, Swadesh Chakraborty of the CPI(M) drew attention to the need of compensation for the dependents of the security personnel who laid down their lives to counter-insurgency operations, at par with the Kargil martyrs. The 1.13 million-strong army has sought a uniform welfare package for all battle casualties at par with the higher amounts given to the next of kin of the 527 soldiers killed and around 1,400 wounded during the Kargil conflict.

The army has raised this issue in the past also, but to no avail, with the government making a distinction between casualties in war and those in counter-insurgency operations on the basis of “different” levels of risk, intensity of action and the like. The family of a soldier killed during Kargil got around Rs 19.30 lakh, including Rs 10 lakh ex gratia from the union government and other special benefits. But the amount for casualties in other operations, including the counter-insurgency operations in J&K and northeast, works out roughly to around Rs 8 lakh.

Similarly, the soldiers injured during the Kargil got Rs 3 lakh to 6 lakh ex gratia, depending on the extent of disability, which further went up with special benefits. In other operations, the ex gratia stands at Rs 1 lakh. As such, there is disparity in the quantum of compensation. Chakraborty urged the government to ensure uniform welfare package for all soldiers in combat.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Lok Sabha held a discussion on the functioning of three organs of the state: the legislature, judiciary and executive. Varkala Radhakrishnan and Suresh Kurup participated from the CPI(M) side. 

Reminding that the people are supreme and the constitution is their creation, Radhakrishnan said the three pillars of the state need to work together. Their functions and powers have been clearly defined in the constitution. As such, all the three organs of the state must be supreme in their respective fields and there must be complete harmony between them. But when we take the situation into consideration, we see that the executive is accountable to the legislature and the latter to the people but, unfortunately, the judiciary is not accountable to any authority under the constitution that has only an impracticable article 124 dealing with impeachment. The Judges Inquiry Act was passed in 1962 but it proved unworkable. There is no other country in the world where judges appoint themselves, where judges determine their conditions of service. Now the Supreme Court is trying to be hyperactive despite the fact that there is a specific provision in the constitution that the courts should not interfere in the business of the house. In our country, with judicial activism all around, the courts can decide anything under the sun. Radhakrishnan urged the government to constitute a National Commission for Judicial Accountability, saying that it must be an independent body.

Suresh Kurup referred to the current fad of judicial activism and contrasted it with the past. He said when the country very much needed the help of the Supreme Court, when everybody looked to the Supreme Court, they did not come to the rescue of our democracy. During the Emergency, they approved every action of the executive. They allowed the government to extend the term of the parliament. They allowed the government to take away all the fundamental rights. Ultimately, it was the people of this country, not the judges, who rescued this country.

Kurup said the concept of separation of powers is one of the basic features of a democratic polity. As such, there needs be sufficient checks and balances for the three organs. No organ can be given the power of superintendence over any other organ. Our Supreme Court also admitted it in several judgements. But now a peculiar problem has arisen. In their over-enthusiasm, the Supreme Court and other courts are repeatedly protruding into the functions of the executive and the legislature. Take, for example, the demolition drive, which the Supreme Court ordered with great gusto. It appointed a committee to monitor the demolition and report back everyday. The question is: Under what provision of the constitution or under what law did the Supreme Court appoint this committee and asked it to report back? After all this happened, some eminent jurists came out openly, saying that the particular judge who monitored all this had personal interest in it. But to date no inquiry has been done because there is no provision to inquire into the activities of a retired judge. In the Jagdambika Pal case in Uttar Pradesh and in the Jharkhand assembly case, it is quite clear that the Supreme Court had overstepped into the domain of the legislature. Otherwise, how can a court say that every proceeding of an assembly must be reported to it? How can the court supervise the proceedings of parliament or of a state legislature? The Kerala High Court prohibited smoking in public places. It was for a good cause. But under what law did it do so? The same court prohibited activities of the student organisations in college and university campuses. Our constitution gives freedom to everybody in the country to organise and ventilate grievances peacefully. But the court says that this particular section of society, that is students, must not form any organisation or work in campuses.  Under what provision did the court issue this directive? Tomorrow they may say that trade unions are no good for the country and must be disbanded. And the courts are doing all this because they are allowed to appoint their peers and successors. But to date the government of the country has not dared correct it. The executive had a say in the appointment of judges; that had been the practice. But, one fine morning, the Supreme Court passes a judgement in a case before it, says that this is unconstitutional and that the judges alone have the right to decide who their peers should be. This needs to be corrected. There needs be a proper authority for the appointment of judges, consisting of representatives of the government, the opposition and also of the judges.

And what about the corruption charges against the judges in various High Courts, lower judiciary and also in the Supreme Court? They themselves inquire about it. Kurup wanted to know the fate of the Judges Inquiry Bill which was moved in the parliament in 2006.