Mr.
Deputy Chairman, Sir, the reply to the President's Address is a very important
part of the proceedings of the House. It has many unique features. It is the
only mandatory thing without which the Parliament cannot start. Earlier, the
mandatory nature was that you would have the President's Address before each
session started. We amended it in 1951 because we did not want to trouble the
President so many times in a year. In a sense, without the President’s Address
and its reply, no debate is possible. It is, in fact, one of the most important
debates in the entire calendar year. Earlier, there was also a procedure
whereby it had to start the next day after the President's120 Address without any other business being
taken up. We have also slightly amended that now. We are expected to start140 (1) soon after but not
immediately. Another unique feature is that in many parliamentary democracies,
especially those linked to the British160
Commonwealth system, this debate in reply to the Motion on President's Address
can go up to 15 days. In Canada, the usual customary duration is one month. In
our Parliament, we give three days for this debate. The idea is to open a
channel of communication between the Government and the Legislature. As we
know, the President is nothing else but the Government, as far as this
particular provision of the Constitution is concerned, and any such channel of
communication240 cannot be clogged.
It is a vital source of communication between the Government of India and the
Legislature, and this clogging of communication can lead to unnecessary
problems. In a sense, it is a review of the year gone by;280 it is also a trailer for the future;
and, finally, (2) it is a tribute to Indian democracy that we discuss,
debate, and disagree. But it is always passed unanimously with or without
amendments, and that is the strength of Indian democracy.
Mr.
Deputy Chairman, Sir, this is the time to sit back and to express satisfaction
over the achievements made so far. They need to be highlighted even if some of
them are obvious. They need to be reiterated and360 underlined. However, it is also a time to introspect
in a non-partisan manner. It is important to introspect for nation-building. It
is important to be self-critical because there are always many miles to walk
which remain. It is also important to be self-critical because while we applaud
the glass half full, we try to make sure that the stream of420 that glass half full is clear,
unpolluted and pure. We also not only recognise but also empathise with the
glass half empty. It is most importantly a time to dream. (3) It is a
time to dream about India and India's future. Dreaming permits each and every one
of us to be quietly and safely insane every night of our lives.480
Sir,
we are the world's second fastest growing economy after China. We have been
growing at six per cent for 27 years. For the last four years, we have been
growing at above eight per cent. An international report suggests that we would
achieve double digit growth in the near future. Several reports suggest that by
2025, we would be ahead of Japan as the world's third largest economy after the
United States and China. Car560
sales are touching the figure of eight million per year in our country. In the
United States, for the top ten management schools to recruit people who apply
for jobs, it takes two months on an average. On the other600 hand, for the top ten schools in India,
it takes (4) less than four hours; that is the spirit of a rising India.
But this spirit has to be tampered by reality. The reality around us can be
equally shocking. We have 25 per cent people living below the poverty line.
Incidentally, I read an interesting article the other day about how this enumeration
of poverty is done. If between the last year and this year, somebody has got a
fan or somebody has got a toilet made, then he is struck off the BPL list. So,
there700 are actually people
who are interested in hiding the extra toilet that they have made over the last
one year720 because they are
scared of losing their BPL status. But let us stick to our own definition. It
is not, and it can never be, a matter of pride for this country to have 25 per
cent people below the poverty line. What is more important is that the (5)
rate of decrease is relatively small and slow. The rate of decrease has been
under one per cent of this poverty line. What is even more important is that in
this overall figure of 25 per cent, it hides inter-State disparity. There are
States like Punjab which have had a ratio of 6 per cent people below the
poverty line. If six per cent is the figure840
of Punjab and the average is 25 per cent, you can imagine that there is an
inter-State disparity in a lot of States which is well above 25 per cent. What
is still more important is that there is intra-State disparity. Parts of Bihar
or Chhattisgarh or Madhya Pradesh would have rates of poverty different from
their own State average. It is for this reason that the hon. President's
Address speaks of inclusive growth. This is the rationale underlying that
phrase. This is why we say that the (6) 10 per cent growth must be
inclusive, but it must go as much to manufacturing sector as to the service
sector; it must go to the agriculture sector also. Most960 importantly, it must display a greater
inclusion of labour and economies of scale. If we look at the true human980 development indicator, only one figure
is enough, and that is malnutrition. With 40 per cent of malnutrition and 25
per cent people below the poverty line, we cannot be self-congratulatory. That
is why the Central Government’s budgetary support to key sectors has been
unprecedented, especially during the UPA regime. These figures are known, but
they are striking and, therefore, I must point out that the allocation on three
key sectors that is, agriculture, health, and rural development, has been
tripled between the Tenth and the Eleventh Five Year Plans. In fact, if you add
education, these four1080 sectors
account for over half of the Eleventh Plan. The (7) Budget is hardly a
week old. The Budget maintains all the significant schemes initiated by this
Government, whether it is the Drinking Water Mission, or the Jawaharlal Nehru
Urban Renewal Mission, or the Rural Employment Scheme.1120 There are many more and the President's
Address mentions them.
Mr.
Deputy Chairman, Sir, I am referring to those elements which have found
specific mention in the hon. President's Address. It is the collective
ownership of the people which is the underlying theme in the Budget. No tree
can flower, no tree can bear fruits unless its roots are strong. Unless the
bottom and the lower levels of pyramid feel involved, unless the gap1200 between the different sections is
closed, you cannot hope to have real growth. These are, therefore, virtuous components
of equity, participation and transparency. There is another feature in the UNDP
wish list of good governance, and that is, rule of law. We must ask ourselves
the question. (8) India is perhaps the only country which has emerged
from1260 the yoke of
imperialism in 1947. We have rule of law in this country and, therefore, we1280 have to do everything possible to
strengthen the concept of rule of law. It is good that the Budget recently has
increased the planned allocation to the judiciary. But there are several issues
where many more miles need to be walked. The allocations have to be increased
even more. More importantly, India's average is running at about 12 or 13
Judges per million of population whereas the global average is above 40. There
is a Supreme Court order which says that the number of Judges per million
population in this country should be at least 50 Judges per million population.
For that, we need to increase judicial outlays dramatically. Let me give you a
simple example. We have court fees levied by1400
(9) most States. The court fee must be an earmarked amount which must go
directly into the judicial account. That does not happen. There are several
other reforms. Why should there be a distinction in the age of retirement
between High Court judges and Supreme Court judges? A High Court judge retires
at 62 whereas a Supreme Court judge goes on up to 65. Both ages are
significantly less than the global average of 70 or 75. It is startling that
right from Independence till today, two statistics stand out. There are roughly
700 High Court judges all over the country. Out of 700, at any point of time,
around 150 judicial seats have remained vacant. You cannot uphold the rule of
law if 150 seats of High Court judges out of 700 seats are always vacant in a big
country like India.1540 (10)
