Regarding Motion For Adjournment On Failure Of Central Government … on 28 November, 2005

Lok Sabha Debates
Regarding Motion For Adjournment On Failure Of Central Government … on 28 November, 2005

Title : Regarding motion for adjournment on failure of Central Government for taking any action against the alledged involvement of some Indian entities and Individuals as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations ‘Oil for Food Programme’ in Iraq (Motion Negatived)

Alleged involvement of some Indian entities and individuals as non-contractual beneficiaries of the UN Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq

MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received two notices of Adjournment Motion from Sarvashri L. K. Advani and George Fernandes regarding “the Central Government’s failure to take proper action against the involved Indian entities and individuals as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq, as reported in the Report of the United Nations’ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) and its efforts to cover up these serious crimes”.

I have given my consent to Shri L. K. Advani who has secured first place in the ballot to move the motion in the following form:-

“The Central Government’s failure to take proper action against the Indian entities and individuals allegedly involved as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq, as reported in the Report of the United Nations’ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) and its efforts to cover up these serious crimes”.

Shri L. K. Advani may now ask for leave of the House.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to you for permitting me to move this Adjournment Motion but I had written a letter to you yesterday and I have spoken to you that in order that a debate in the House on the Volcker Committee Report be purposeful, really substantial and enlighten the country and the House, perhaps, the papers that have been received by our Special Envoy from the Volcker Committee are required. He has himself told the Press in New York that all the relevant papers are essential papers. This is the word he has used.

MR. SPEAKER: May I suggest that after leave is granted, you may raise that issue.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I do not know whether the Government has received those papers.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore, I will just formally go through the process. You just formally ask for leave of the House.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I seek leave of the House for moving the Adjournment Motion regarding “the Central Government’s failure to take proper action against the Indian entities and individuals allegedly involved as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq, as reported in the Report of the United Nations’ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) and its efforts to cover up these serious crimes”.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the leave opposed?

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): Sir, as it has been decided in the informal consultation with the representatives of the Government, I am not formally opposing the Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted. Under rule 61, the Adjournment Motion is to be taken up at 16.00 hours or at an earlier hour. Under rule 62 not less than 2 hours and 30 minutes are allotted for its discussion. The discussion on the motion may be taken up immediately after laying of papers, etc. It will be after the routine matters. I think the House agrees.


MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Sir, I want the Government’s response.

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA (SOUTH DELHI): Sir, that is a separate issue.

MR. SPEAKER: You have already raised it.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: You raise this question.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Yes, I have already raised it.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: Then, I am responding to it.

Mr. Speaker, Sir. Yesterday when I was in Kolkata I received a telephone call from you informing me of the demand of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that all the relevant papers which the Special Envoy has received from the Volcker Committee should be placed on the Table of the House. Immediately on my return from Kolkata, you were kind enough to send me the copy of the letter which the Leader of the Opposition has sent to you and I responded. I pointed out that Shri Virendra Dayal has been engaged as a special envoy to liaison with the United Nations and its Member States to gather the material and document to help Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority to ascertain this truth. The papers were handed over by the Volcker Committee to the Directorate of the Enforcement who accompanied Shri Dayal. They are in the lawful custody of the Enforcement Directorate and after analysis and investigation, they will be submitted only to Justice Pathak for the purpose of his inquiry and necessary action. Nobody other than Justice Pathak Inquiry Committee is entitled to examine these papers till the Inquiry is over. The judgements in Vineet Narayan’s case and in some other cases have made it quite clear that the investigating agencies like CBI and Enforcement Directorate are not subject to any administrative control in matters of investigations and are answerable only to the law and the courts of law. Therefore, the question of placing these materials and documents on the Table of the House before the Inquiry is completed is out of question. … (Interruptions)

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : उस पर परदा डालना चाहते हैं।….. (व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Let him finish.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE : Please allow me to complete.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This is an important matter. Let him finish.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE : Most respectfully, I would like to submit that because of this in rule 188, it has been provided that a matter which is under the consideration or examination or investigation of a Commission of Inquiry need not be discussed. But there is a provision and under that proviso you have permitted it and you have accepted it. But simply it is not possible because nobody in the administration has any authority to examine it except the investigating officers who are assisting. Their job is to assist the Inquiry Authority which has been set up under Justice Pathak. … (Interruptions)

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : We are only asking that the papers should be laid on the Table which the whole world knows. यह सारी दुनिया को मालूम है, यह पेपर्स क्यों न रखे जाएं। ….. (व्यवधान) हम पहले ही कह रहे हैं कि वह कवर अप करने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं।….. (व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Let me listen to the Leader of the Opposition.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I may candidly admit to you that when I was writing this letter, some colleagues suggested that after all lately the CBI has raided so and so who have been named in the Hamdan and Andaleeb Sehgal, etc. etc. Can you not demand that? I said: ‘No’. The CBI has done it and the CBI is an investigating authority. The Directorate of Enforcement has done it on its own. But in this case, the Prime Minister asked the special envoy to go and meet the Volcker Committee and get the necessary papers relating to this, this and this. Now, I think that there is a difference. The fact that the Director of the Enforcement also went along with him, I do not know. I simply know that he said this to the Press in New York, and he spent one week in New Yord interacting with the Volcker Committee there. I see no reason as to why these papers should not be regarded as part of the Volcker Committee Report itself because the Volcker Committee itself could not have given all these papers; thousands of papers relating to scores of countries. Therefore, it is that we had to send Mr. Virendra Dayal separately to him. I feel that if the Government and the Party also are keen, as the Party President has said that we are keen to find out the truth, there should be no hesitation in giving these papers to Parliament.

This is my submission. I would like him to reconsider it. This is not a matter of investigation by the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate.

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : Sir, we need a clear observation from you.

MR. SPEAKER: I would make my observation.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: Sir, most respectfully, I would like to submit that Mr. Dayal was appointed to assist the Pathak Inquiry Authority. It is not to help the Prime Minister to ascertain the truth. To ascertain the truth, the Inquiry Authority has been appointed and Mr. Dayal was appointed to assist the Inquiry Authority.

Mr. Dayal was appointed because he is well conversant with the functioning of the United Nations’ systems. He was Permanent Under Secretary under the Secretary General. He was our Permanent Representative there. Therefore, he is acquainted with the United Nations’ systems. His job is to assist the Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority and not to help the Administration understand the truth or to have some information. Therefore, it is as simple as that.

श्री मोहन सिंह (देवरिया): +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉäiÉÉ ºÉnxÉ xÉä VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcÉÒ cè, =ºÉàÉå ºÉàÉÉÒFÉÉ BÉEÉ |ɶxÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEä <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ àÉå ªÉc {ÉcãÉÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É ABÉE ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉEä PÉä®ä àÉå +ÉÉ MÉ<Ç cè* ªÉc ºÉnxÉ …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please mention only about the papers. मेरिट पर बोलने की बात नहीं है।

श्री मोहन सिंह : <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä àÉé {Éä{É® BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE {Éä{É® BÉEÉÒ ºÉàÉÉÒFÉÉ ªÉc ºÉnxÉ xÉ BÉE®ä ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉÒ |ÉÉÊiÉ­~É BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä ªÉÉÊn ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ºÉÆYÉÉxÉ àÉå ºÉÉ®ä bÉBÉÚEàÉå]弃 cÉä VÉɪÉå iÉÉä <ºÉÆàÉå {ÉÉ]ÉÔ +ÉÉè® <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉ nºiÉÉ´ÉäVÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç xÉÖBÉEºÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ºÉÆYÉÉxÉ àÉå nºiÉÉ´ÉäWÉ |ɺiÉÖiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä, àÉä®É AäºÉÉ +ÉÉOÉc cè*

gÉÉÒ |É£ÉÖxÉÉlÉ É˺Éc (àÉcÉ®ÉVÉMÉÆVÉ, ÉʤÉcÉ®) : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä VÉÉä VÉÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉàÉå ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ ABÉE BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ +ÉÉè® ABÉE {Én {É® ®cxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä +ÉÉãÉÉ {Én {É® ¤Éè~xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप डाकूमेंट्स के बारे में बोलिये।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : अध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं उसी पर बोल रहा हूं। जब बोलेंगे तभी बतायेंगे। मुझे आपके माध्यम से इस सदन को हकीकत बतानी है…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: If I need anybody’s help, I would ask you.

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉä cBÉEÉÒBÉEiÉ VÉÉxÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä, nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEÉä cBÉEÉÒBÉEiÉ VÉÉxÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä* àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå AäºÉä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ =~ä cé VÉÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉÆiÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉè® ¤ÉÉc®ÉÒ ºÉÖ®FÉÉ ºÉä ºÉƤÉÆÉÊvÉiÉ cÉäiÉä cé* +ÉMÉ® <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå ´Éä {Éä{ɺÉÇ xÉcÉÓ ãÉɪÉä VÉÉiÉä cé iÉÉä ªÉä BÉEÉMÉWÉ AäºÉä cé ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä ºÉSÉÉ<Ç xÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉä ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEÉä VÉÉxÉxÉÉÒ cè* =xÉ BÉEÉMÉWÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊU{ÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ àÉiÉãÉ¤É ªÉc cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ºÉ®BÉEÉ® nÉä­ÉÉÒ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉWÉÉ BÉEàÉ nä ®cÉÒ cè, nÉä­ÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉÆ®FÉhÉ nä ®cÉÒ cè* cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot go on like this. I am sorry. आप बैठ जायें।

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Now, I have to give my ruling.

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, VÉ¤É £ÉÉÒ càÉ Jɽä cÉäiÉä cé, =vÉ® ªÉc ¤ÉÉÒàÉÉ®ÉÒ BÉDªÉÉå cÉä VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè?

+ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : आप इसे छोड़िये।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : अध्यक्ष महोदय, ज़रा इनकी बीमारी को ठीक कीजिये।

अध्यक्ष महोदय : हम आपका आदर करते हैं।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : अध्यक्ष महोदय, इसलिये हम आपसे कहना चाहते हैं…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take everything in good spirit.

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ +ÉÉ{ɺÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉ àÉèÉÊ®] {É® xÉcÉÓ VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé, càÉ iÉÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BÉEÉMÉWÉ BÉEÉä ºÉnxÉ àÉå ®JÉxÉä ºÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ |ÉÉÊiÉ­~É ¤ÉfÃäMÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® nä¶É {ÉÚ®ÉÒ cBÉEÉÒBÉEiÉ VÉÉxÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ* <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä càÉ…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: It is an advice for them, not for me.

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä àÉä®É +ÉÉOÉc cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ÉÊ]{{hÉÉÒ nÉÒÉÊVɪÉä*…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : क्या आपकी बात पूरी हो गई?

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : अध्यक्ष महोदय, कहां हो गई? टोका-टाकी में जो भी था, वह भी खत्म हो गया।

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप ब्रीफ में समरी दीजिये।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : अध्यक्ष महोदय, हमें दो मिनट फ्री तो दीजिये। हल्ला बंद कराइए, तब हम बोलेंगे।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप लोग क्या कर रहे हैं? इससे क्या फायदा हो रहा है? Only what Shri Prabhunath Singh says would be recorded.

… (Interruptions)

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, càÉ …* नाम नहीं ले रहे हैं…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: No, it would not be recorded.

(Interruptions) … (Not recorded)

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, VÉ¤É càÉ =xÉBÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉä ®cä cé…( व्यवधान)

SHRI KIRIP CHALIHA (GUWAHATI): Sir, it should not go on record. This is highly objectionable. … (Interruptions)

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, càÉ iÉÉä ªÉc BÉEc ®cä cé …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: This is very unfortunate on both sides. Hon. Members from all sides should have a little patience. I am sure, your leaders’ position would not at all be affected by some observations.

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : càÉ SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É <ºÉ {É® +É{ÉxÉÉÒ +ÉÉì¤VÉ´Éæ¶ÉxÉ nÉÒÉÊVÉA*

+ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : ऑब्जर्वेशन देने का मौका तो दीजिए।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : आप हम लोगों के संरक्षक हैं, सदन के अध्यक्ष हैं, इसलिए जो भी कागजात हैं, उन्हें आप सदन में मंगवाइये, ताकि सदन के माध्यम से देश जान सके कि इसमें कौन-कौन से लोग हैं, वे बड़े हैं या छोटे हैं, उन सबकी कलई खुल जाए। इसलिए…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Krip Chaliha, please restrain yourself.

… (Interruptions)

* Not Recorded.

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : <ºÉàÉå {Énæ BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ¤ÉcÖiÉ ãÉÉäMÉ cé*…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : अब आप बैठिये, आपकी बात आ गई।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : कुछ लोग सामने आ गए हैं और कुछ लोग पर्दे के पीछे हैं। हम चाहते हैं कि पर्दे के पीछे के लोगों का नाम भी इसमें खुलना चाहिए।

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आपकी बात पूरी हो गई।

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Sir, in reply to a question it has been stated that the Government has also appointed him; so that these two things are not inter-related. In fact, to the best of my recollection, Shri Virender Dayal was appointed first for fact-finding. It was only subsequently that Justice Pathak was brought in as a Judicial Commission. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please sit down.

… (Interruptions)

PROF. M. RAMADASS : He was only appointed to collect the papers. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Yes, it is right. There is difference between the role of the Judicial Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act. I will come to it in the course of my debate. But so far as Shri Virender Dayal is concerned, it related to the enquiry being conducted by Justice Pathak and on that ground it is said that it cannot be given. Frankly, I would plead with you that it is first replied. The Leader of the House referred to the fact that the Director of Enforcement accompanied him and on that basis sought to say that we cannot give papers that are collected by the Directorate of Enforcement. I myself conceded that when the CBI had conducted raids here, I cannot demand those papers. `I cannot’. That is a different mater. But in this particular case it was Shri Virender Dayal, who in pursuance of the desire of the Government to find out what is in the Volcker Committee’s Report or papers, which has made them mention the name of the Congress Party and Shri Natwar Singh, had brought all those papers. Would it not be fair to the House if those papers are not made available in the House? … (Interruptions)

SHRI KINJARAPU YERRANNAIDU (SRIKAKULAM): Sir, please give me a chance to speak. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: No, Shri Yerrannaidu, please take your seat.

Hon. Members, there is a plea raised by hon. Leader of the Opposition in support of his Adjournment Motion. I have heard it twice or thrice. There is a response from the Opposition. Let me give my views.

Now, it is correct and our rules specifically provide that when some matter is before any court or any Commission of Inquiry or Inquiring Authority, it should not be discussed on the floor of the House. This is the usual rule. But there is a proviso giving discretion to the Speaker. I have exercised this discretion in favour of a discussion because the country or my friends in the Opposition are asking for a debate. I have also conceded it because of the importance of the matter. The matter is important to be debated on the floor of the House in spite of institution of an inquiry which is now under the Commission of Inquiry Act. I have been told that.

Therefore, once a matter is seized by the Inquiry Commission, we do not ordinarily discuss this matter. But once the inquiry has been constituted and the papers have been submitted to them, I think, this is a matter which should not be insisted upon at this stage. In any event when the report is submitted, it is bound to be presented in the House along with the Action Taken Report. Then, the House can again discuss it. In any event, there is no provision in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha under which I can direct the Government to place any document, impugned or otherwise, on the Table of the House. There is catena of rulings given by the hon. Chair in the past reiterating this position.

Now, as the hon. Members are aware, the Inquiry Committee has already started its work, as it is known and the report of the Committee is to be laid on the Table of the House. The hon. Members will get an ample opportunity to discuss the matter on the floor of the House. Therefore, I am sorry, I am not in a position to accede to the request of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER : Your submission is not being recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER : Nobody can make a statement after the Speaker’s ruling. It is not being recorded. No.

(Interruptions) …*

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : +ÉÉ{É bɪɮèBÉD¶ÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ nä ºÉBÉEiÉä, {É® ºÉ®BÉEÉ® uÉ®É <ºÉBÉEÉä ÉÊU{ÉÉxÉÉ +É{ÉxÉä +ÉÉ{É àÉå ¤ÉcÖiÉ SÉÉéBÉEÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER : That is your comment. You make your observations. I am not stopping it.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI ANANTH KUMAR: Sir, we are only requesting for laying of the papers. Why could they not lay the papers on the Table of the House? … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER : You make the observations in your speech.

Thank you very much. Now Papers to be laid on the Table.






12.36 hrs.


Alleged involvement of some Indian entities and individuals as non-contractual beneficiaries of the UN Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq—Contd.,

MR. SPEAKER: Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I beg to move:

“That the House do now adjourn ”

Sir, today is the 28th of November, 2005. Almost exactly one month back, on the 27th of October, 2005, the fifth and final Report of the Volcker Committee was released by the Chairman, Mr. Paul Volcker in New York. It is after one month that this House is discussing the Report.

The nature of the Volcker Committee and the task assigned to it were ordinarily such that this may not have become a major discussion in this House. It was more concerned with the United Nations itself, as to how a programme of the United Nations seeking to give some relief to the people of Iraq, who were under great distress because of the sanctions imposed on them, became converted into something totally different, and what was the UN Secretariat doing all the while? On that very day the concluding observations of the Chairman were:

“The results of the Committee’s investigations into the corrupt and illicit activity by many buyers of oil and sellers of humanitarian goods reinforces the Committee’s central conclusion of failures in UN oversight and management. The need for stronger executive leadership through administrative report and more reliable controls and audit within the UN is underscored. ”

I am referring to this particular remark of the Chairman only to emphasise that we were not the subject matter of discussion; India was not, as such. The subject matter of discussion and inquiry by this Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) headed by Volcker was: why has a programme, which was sought to benefit the people of Iraq who were under great strain, has become converted into a massive programme of corruption and illicit helping of Iraq Government and all that?

The first four Reports mainly related to the UN and the UN Secretariat, what the UN had been doing for that while. Now, it is the fifth Report. What they did was, whatever paper they had discovered, surprisingly, the Iraq Government was very meticulous in keeping all the records of these transactions. About the officials, in fact, when I happened to meet Mr. Shashi of the UN, he told me that ‘while the Head of the Government may have distributed at will and signed anything, the records maintained were very meticulous.’

It so happened that that oil Ministry’s building was not destroyed, not bombed, and so all the papers are available. It is, therefore, when the fifth volume was published with all these reports, the country was naturally surprised how so many Indian companies had been mentioned there. More than 125, around 130, companies were mentioned. This was a matter of surprise for us that they had been profiting from this kind of an operation. This was a big scam. They made a lot of money.

We were certainly shocked and I am sure the Congress Party would have been even more shocked when it found the names mentioned, among the non-contractual beneficiaries, of the country’s Foreign Minister, Shri Natwar Singh and the Congress Party itself.… (Interruptions) Therefore, it was not surprising when sometime later the Congress President said, “I am angry, upset as to how this has happened”. I welcomed her statement that very day. It was on the 15th of November when she went to address the Hindustan Times Conclave, she made these observations in the morning. In the evening, I was also invited to the same Conclave. I welcomed the statement made by the Congress President. But I did feel surprise and that surprise I would express even today. Why it had taken nearly three weeks for her to express this kind of indignation? It could have been done immediately after the appearance of the Volcker Committee Report. If it had happened then, none of the irresponsible statements made by either the Foreign Minister or by the Congress Party Spokesman would ever have been there. No one would have said that.

What was the initial response of Shri Natwar Singh? I really felt surprised. He gave his initial response from Frankfurt. Later on when he came here, he went to the extent of saying that this Report is all …(Expunged as ordered by the Chair)

untruth. When we went to meet the President, Shri George Fernandes and other colleagues were also there. We pointed out to him, is this the way… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Do not bring the President into the debate.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Let me quote the hon. Minister. At one point he said, ” I am a diplomat and being a diplomat I am under great restraint. I am not allowed to go beyond expressing myself in controlled indignation”. He said that the only emotion a diplomat is allowed is controlled indignation.

But what he actually said, which was widely reported by the PTI News Agency, was “This Report is … untrue”. These were the words he used. Then he went on to say that this is a conspiracy to malign the Congress Party and some of its functionaries. How would the Volcker Committee be interested in maligning the Congress Party and some of its functionaries? Something identical, without using the word functionaries, was repeated by the Congress Party General Secretary. She said that it is an attempt to malign the Congress Party. When the Pressmen asked her as to what about Shri Natwar Singh, she said, “I cannot say about him. I am talking about the Congress Party”. These have been discussed widely and, therefore, I am referring to them.

But I would say that this is the background of the whole Volcker Committee Report and it should be accepted as such. All the three men on the Volcker Committee are eminent persons. Mr. Volcker himself has been an eminent leader in his own field. He has been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in America.

The other member is a professor in crime and criminology and he has been supposed to be an expert in the field of money laundering. The third person has been a judge in Switzerland. So all of them are eminent persons and they had nothing against India. They had nothing against any particular individual or a party. Therefore to be telling the whole world so much so that on the first day when the Congress Party met to consider this, they even went to the extent of hinting at a legal action. Mr. Chidambaram has subsequently denied that. He said that they did not talk of libel or defamation. Maybe, they did not talk of libel or defamation but there was a mention of legal action and that the legal notice will be served. So much so that Mr. Volcker himself had to take cognizance of it and say that he would welcome such a notice, and that let them send a notice. Then obviously, people like our friend Shri Kapil Sibal must have told them how can they do this. It is not possible. Then they must have realised and therefore, the whole threat was withdrawn. But the initial reactions were of threat saying that they will do that and they will do this. The Foreign Minister meets the Prime Minister and the Congress President and comes out again and again by saying that they had given him clean chit. He said that he has explained the whole thing to them and they have given him a clean chit. These are reactions which did not really enhance the reputation of this country. The immediate reaction should have been that if these names have come here, they will inquire it and they will go into it thoroughly. The kind of a situation that has come now would not have come. The initial reactions were to call the whole report bunkum even malicious, even motivated and now the situation is that we have set up an inquiry.

They first appointed Mr. Virendra Dayal to find out the facts from the UN and the Volcker Committee. Subsequently, the pressure went on increasing. I must say that my Party and other parties belonging to the NDA did build up this pressure. But even greater pressure was built up by the media itself. There was almost a universal demand that Mr. Natwar Singh has to resign in this situation. In diplomatic circles, it was generally being said that how can a person who has been named in this kind of a report continue to be the Foreign Minister. Obviously, this much was conceded that he cannot continue to be the Foreign Minister. Even though he himself kept on saying that he shall be the Foreign Minister. He told a television correspondent: “I shall be the Foreign Minister, you will see.” She asked him if after some time she comes to see you in this very library of yours will you still hope to be the Foreign Minister. He said: ‘Of course, why not? He will be the Foreign Minister. Why should he quit? Why should he resign?’ These kinds of statements did not enhance the reputation and prestige either of the Government or even of the country. The country should have accepted the Volcker Committee’s report with grace. They did not say that these are their findings. They said that whatever papers they have got from the Ministry of Oil, Government of Iraq, they are publishing them. Why should we blame the Volcker Committee? Iraq was not our enemy.

So far as the action of America or of the UN against Iraq is concerned, I do not think there is much of a difference in the country irrespective of which Government is there in office. Our Government was there and we did not approve of it. Now your Government is there. But to say that because we have taken certain stands against the United States which had been reflected in the United Nations, therefore, this is being done. These statements and such remarks did not add to our reputation.

SHRI J.M. AARON RASHID (PERIYAKULAM): The NDA Government was in power at the Centre for six years and Shri Ram Naik was the then Minister of Petroleum… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I am aware of it. Therefore, immediately I enquired from the then Oil Minister as to what had happened at that time. I felt satisfied when my attention was drawn even to the Volcker Committee Report and even to the tables that said that the amount attributed to the Indian Oil Corporation had not been lifted and there was no pay back of any kind. When these things came, my former Oil Minister told me, and I felt happy. I enquired from him immediately as to what had happened.

The hon. Prime Minister as well as the hon. Law Minister is not present here. But I do not understand as to why Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak has not been given all the powers which can be given to him under the Commission of Enquiry Act. He has been constituted into an Authority under Section 11 of the Act. Our Member here would be able to enlighten me more. But what I understand is that even though under that particular provision also, all the full powers in the Act, which are invested in a Commission, can be granted to him yet it depends upon the Executive when he is constituted as a Commission he derives his powers from a parliamentary statute. It is not the Executive that grants him the powers. As it is, for example, today an Authority cannot hold public hearings, whereas a Commission always holds public hearings. Also, I believe, while a Commission can issue a notice to a person under Section 8B, this Authority cannot issue a notice under Section 8B unless the Government grants him that power and the Government that can grant him powers can always withdraw it. If today it grants him power saying: “All right, you hold your enquires in public on a particular matter and when a person comes to give testimony, the Government can say that we withdraw”. I would like to understand from the Government, why Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak’s has authority been so circumscribed? Why not make him a full-fledged Commission under the Commission of Enquiry Act? To the best of my recollection all the Enquiry Commissions appointed earlier have always been Commissions. I do not remember any case where this particular Section 11 has been invoked to convert a Commission into an Authority, that too in case of a person who had been the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India and impose constraints on him that way. A rationale is needed. I do not know what is the rationale. I feel, therefore, it is that there are misgivings and suspicions that here is a Government which in the beginning said it is bunkum and there is no truth in these allegations and then the Congress Party President went to the length of conceding that maybe someone has misused the name of Congress for his personal benefit. This is a very serious matter. If that is true, then there should be even more keenness on the part of the Government to see that the enquiry is not in any way constrained and Justice Pathak is able to identify as to who has tried to make money by misusing the name of the Congress Party. After all, the Congress Party being named in this Volcker Committee Report is not good for the country. It may be of advantage to the Opposition to make an issue out of it. But, in fact, I am surprised as to why the Communist Party – is anyone here from the Communist Party – is silent? … (Interruptions) कांग्रेस पार्टी और सरकार तो कम से कम रिस्पौंसिव हुई। जब आलोचना हुई तो उन्होंने they stripped Shri Natwar Singh of his Foreign Ministry portfolio and then appointed Shri R. S. Pathak. मुझे याद नहीं किसी स्टेज पर कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी ने प्रोब की भी मांग की हो।

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA (BANKURA): Sir, our Party is the first Party who demanded probe.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please address the Chair. You do not have to reply to him at this point of time.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : Sir, he is misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe somebody will speak on behalf of your Party.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: All right. Shri Salim, you will have the right to reply when you participate in the debate.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Let me know if the silence has anything to do with the fact. When I went through Table III relating to the non-contractual beneficiaries of this particular scam, I found names of more than half a dozen countries ruled by Communist Parties in various parts of the world..… (Interruptions) आप कहेंगे तो मैं उनके नाम भी पढ़कर सुना देता हूं कि किस-किस कंट्री की कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी बेनफिशरीज रही हैं। …( व्यवधान)

श्री मोहन सिंह (देवरिया) : +ÉMÉ® càÉÉ®ÉÒ BÉEÆ]ÅÉÒ àÉå xÉcÉÓ cè iÉÉä UÉä½ nÉÒÉÊVÉA* …( व्यवधान)

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : àÉé <iÉxÉÉ cÉÒ BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä iÉÉä BÉEàÉ ºÉä BÉEàÉ ÉÊbàÉÉÆb BÉE®xÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉBÉEÉ {ÉiÉÉ ãÉMÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉxÉä {ÉèºÉä ÉÊãɪÉä cé* …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : ठीक है, हो गया।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री बसुदेव आचार्य : सबसे पहले हमने डिमांड की है। …( व्यवधान)

मोहम्मद सलीम (कलकत्ता-उत्तर पूर्व) : =xÉ BÉEÆ]ÅÉÒVÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊãɺ] àÉå xÉÉàÉ näJÉxÉä ºÉä {ÉcãÉä cÉÒ càÉ |ÉÉä¤É BÉEÉÒ ÉÊbàÉÉÆb BÉE® SÉÖBÉEä cé* …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: I would not allow that, Shri Advani.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: Please do not bring the names of other countries here..… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I am not mentioning their names. I am just asking our own Communist Party. I am not mentioning about others.… (Interruptions)

MD. SALIM : This is part of the game. … (Interruptions) अफसोस की बात है कि हिन्दुस्तान में किसी कम्युनिस्ट का नाम नहीं मिला। …( व्यवधान) मैं आडवाणी जी को सिर्फ याद दिला रहा हूं। …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : थोड़ी-थोड़ी टोका-टाकी अच्छी है। एक दफा टोका-टाकी हो गयी इसलिए अब मत कीजिए।

…( व्यवधान)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Sir, of course, the Leader of the House referred to the case of Mr. Kutty who has been brutally assassinated. But, in this House, we have discussed the issue of cross border terrorism many times. In all those discussions, we were concerned about violence and the killings and we were always even more concerned about financing of terrorism and how this is being financed by other countries. In fact, the comprehensive resolution against terrorism given in the UN by India deals mainly with financing of terrorism. Let me say that foreign finance being used to promote terrorism and violence in India is bad. Foreign finance being used in any manner to make people here in India trade the country’s sovereignty or trade the decision-making autonomy of the people or of the political parties is a very sad thing. It is a very sad thing.

Corruption, no doubt, is an evil but what Volcker has exposed is corruption plus lack of integrity. It betrays willingness on the part of the political leadership to trade the country’s sovereignty and its decision-making independence. It is a matter of sadness and shame. Therefore, I was not able to understand why the Congress Party and the Government are not willing to discuss the revelations made by the Mitrokhin Archives though not in the form of a book. I can understand that we cannot discuss the book. But the revelations made in that are very serious and those should be considered.

Before I conclude, I would plead with you that that is a matter on which I have enquired from the British High Commission here and I am told that various questions in that regard have been permitted in the House of Commons and replied to.

13.00 hrs.

I see no reason why we should not have a discussion on that. But that is a matter which you have to consider. I do not agree with the approach of the Congress Party that this matter of Mitrokhin Archives will not be discussed. I would plead with you and discuss with you that matter separately. … (Interruptions)

मोहम्मद सलीम : +ÉÉè® ´Éc * का दौरा ? …( व्यवधान)

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : ´Éc cÉÒ BÉDªÉÉå ? बहुत सारे लोग गये होंगे। उसमें कोई दिक्कत नहीं है। हां, अगर उसमें उन का नाम होता तो मैं पहले ही कह देता।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : अभी छोड़िए ।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: I will not allow any name of a person who is not a Member of the House to be taken.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : So far as I am concerned, if his name had been there, I would have been the first to ask for an inquiry. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You can deny any member of your Party is involved.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I would again plead that the matter is not confined to merely Volcker Committee Report. It is a matter relating to the vulnerability of Indian politics, vulnerability of Indian politicians, vulnerability of Indian political parties to the lure of big money. The lure of big money in this case certainly affects us. Mr. Chidambaram is nodding. I remember that when he was the Minister of State for Home, in the Consultative Committee of the Home Affairs I had raised the issue of foreign funding. In our country we have a law. I do not know whether similar laws exist in other countries. According to that law, if a person accepts an invitation from a foreign country and goes there and enjoys its hospitality without permission from the Government, when he comes back he is taken to task saying that he did it without the permission of the Government. Even a cup of tea cannot be accepted. There are strict laws insofar as foreign funding is concerned for the common man. The Reports that have surfaced in the past few

*Not Recorded


months show that these do not apply to political parties and politicians who can amass huge and enormous wealth. Therefore, while a discussion is needed, I would appeal to you, to the President of the Congress Party and to the Home Minister that an Experts Committee should be constituted to examine how the influence of foreign money could be really and effectively contained in the Indian domestic politics. If a law is needed for that, let us have it. But not a law like the one that we have till now, that is the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, which applies only to small people or an MP who does not know about it or a journalist who does not know about it and is taken to task for that. This is my final point. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. He has concluded.

… (Interruptions)

मोहम्मद सलीम : VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É cÉäàÉ ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]® lÉä, iÉ¤É +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä +É{ÉxÉä ºÉàÉªÉ àÉå {ÉEÉì®äxÉ {ÉEÆÉËbMÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå <à|ÉÚ´ÉàÉå] BÉDªÉÉå xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ ? तब आपने इंक्वायरी क्यों नहीं की ? तब आप क्यों पीछे हट गये ? …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Motion moved:

“That the House do adjourn now.”

This is an important matter. I have allowed an Adjournment Motion. We can have a very good discussion. Already there is a good opening.

Hon. Members, do you want lunch hour or not? Do you want recess?


MR. SPEAKER: There will be lunch hour. We will meet at 2 o’clock. The voting will be at around 6 o’clock.

13.04 hrs.

The Lok Sabha then adjourned for Lunch

till Fourteen of the Clock.



14.05 hrs.

The Lok Sabha reassembled after lunch at

Five minutes past Fourteen of the Clock.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

संसदीय कार्य मंत्री तथा सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्री (श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी) : +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉVÉ ºÉÖ¤Éc |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEä àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉäiÉÉ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ uÉ®É ºÉnxÉ àÉå ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É =~ɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ, ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® ¤ÉcºÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä +ÉxÉÖàÉÉÊiÉ nÉÒ* <ºÉBÉEä ºÉÆn£ÉÇ àÉå =xcÉåxÉä VÉÉä ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ, àÉÖZÉä =ºÉä ºÉÖxÉxÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ* ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É {É® SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÖ°ô+ÉÉiÉ <ºÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ ºÉä cÉäiÉÉÒ cè –

“The Central Government’s failure to take proper action against the Indian entities and individuals allegedly involved as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq, as reported in the Report of the United Nations’ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) and its efforts to cover up these serious crimes.”

आडवाणी जी ने स्थगन प्रस्ताव पर इस बात पर जोर और बल दिया कि जब यह रिपोर्ट आई, तब से अब तक केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास एक्शन लेने के लिए पर्याप्त समय था। आडवाणी जी देश के उप प्रधान मंत्री रह चुके हैं और गृह मंत्री के रूप में भी उन्होंने देश की जिम्मेदारी सम्भाली है। वह भी जानते हैं कि सरकार के पास कदम उठाने का मसला तब आता है, जब सरकार के पास कुछ कागज हों या कुछ तथ्य उसे मिलें। मैं बताना चाहता हूं कि हमारी सरकार का इस पर क्या रवैया था। संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ की सुरक्षा परिषद द्वारा जो पॉल वाल्कर की अध्यक्षता में कमेटी गठित की गई थी, उस कमेटी की पांचवीं और फाइनल सब्स्टेंशियल रिपोर्ट २७ तारीख को आई। वैसे वह एक तरह से दुनिया को पेज-बाई-पेज इसकी खबर आती रही थी। दुनिया के पत्रकारों को, राजनीतिक नेताओं को इसके बारे में पता चलता रहता था। २८ और २९ तारीख को यह रिपोर्ट सार्वजनिक हुई, जिसके दो वाल्यूम थे। आप रिपोर्ट के वाल्यूम एक और दो में एक जगह भी हमें दिखा दें कि जहां भारत के किसी बड़े बिजनेस घराने या किसी बड़े व्यक्ति का नाम हो। जिनका नाम है भी, उन्हें इस बारे में नोटिस देकर उनका जवाब इस रिपोर्ट के अंदर दाखिल करने का काम उन्होंने किया है।

मैंने बड़े गौर से रिपोर्ट के दोनों वाल्यूम्स के एक-एक पन्ने को पढ़ने की कोशिश की है। मैंने देखा कि दोनों वाल्यूम्स के अंदर जिन देशों या कम्पनीज का जिक्र था कांट्रेक्चुअल एग्रीमेंट के बारे में या नॉनकांट्रेक्चुअल बेनफिशरीज के बारे में, उन्हें बाकायदा नोटिस दिया और उन्होंने जवाब में क्या कहा, इसे भी उस रिपोर्ट में सम्मिलित किया गया है। लेकिन अफसोस की बात है कि अनवेरीफाइड डाक्यूमेंट्स, अनवेरीफाइड ट्रांजेक्शन्स के ऊपर लिस्ट उन्होंने निकाली, यह आज से नहीं सदियों से है। यह लिस्ट निकालने के बाद “अलमादा ” न्यूज मैगजींस से लेकर कई पत्रिकाओं के अंदर भारत का जिक्र दो जगह किया गया है, जिसमें इंडियन नेशनल कांग्रेस नहीं, आल इंडिया कांग्रेस नहीं, शायद उन्हें पता भी नहीं होगा कि हमारी पार्टी का नाम क्या है, उन्होंने इंडिया कांग्रेस पार्टी करके और एक आदमी का नाम देकर उसे टेबल किया, जिसे पॉल वाल्कर ने खुद कहा अनवेरीफाइड। आडवाणी जी ने सही किया, आपने बड़ी कुशलता के साथ सही मोशन यहां रखा। आपने यह नहीं कहा कि मेरे पास सबूत हैं, आपने कहा कि जांच होनी चाहिए।

MR. SPEAKER: I have put that word.

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : आपकी राय बहुत अच्छी है।

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह तो परम्परा के मुताबिक ही होता है।

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : अनवेरीफाइड क्लाइंट्स, अनवेरीफाइड इश्यू के बारे मैं बताना चाहता हूं। इस सदन के अंदर अगर कोई सबसे बड़ा विक्टिम होने की मिसाल है तो वह खुद हमारे आडवाणी जी हैं। इस देश में एक दिन पत्रिकाओं के द्वारा, मीडिया के द्वारा यह उछालने की कोशिश की गई कि फलां-फलां नेता ने जैन से पैसा लिया और जैन डायरी में उनका नाम है।

श्री हरिन पाठक (अहमदाबाद) : उस पर क्या रिस्पाँस था?

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बीच में न बोलें।

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : He immediately resigned.… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: I am coming to that. You need not advise me. I know that.… (Interruptions) I know it. First, I would request you to listen to me. … (Interruptions) Sir, if they interrupt me like this in the very beginning itself, I seek your protection.

अध्यक्ष महोदय : हरिन जी आप जानते हैं कि वह ईल्ड नहीं कर रहे हैं।

श्री प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी : मैं इन्हें कहूंगा कि पहले मेरी बात सुन लें। अनवैरीफाइड डाक्यूमेंट के शिकार दुनिया के कोने-कोने में लोग हुए हैं, उसके बारे में मैंने कहा था। आडवाणी जी ने सही कहा कि कोर्ट जांच करे, पड़ताल करे। जब तक जांच न हो, मैं सदन में नहीं आऊंगा। यह बात मैं कहने ही जा रहा था। जैन डायरी में अगर किसी का नाम चला गया तो वह दोषी साबित हो गया। लेकिन अदालत ने माननीय आडवाणी जी को बरी किया। Now, I am coming to the main issue.

आज की चर्चा बहुत सीमित है कि वोल्कर रिपोर्ट की टेबल I to V के अंदर ट्रांजैक्शन लिस्ट में ट्रांजैक्शन से जुड़े हुए जो नाम हैं, उनके बारे में सरकार का रवैया क्या है? ट्रांजैक्शन तब हुआ जब भारत सरकार के नेतृत्व में यूपीए सरकार नहीं थी। अगर ट्रांजैक्शन हुआ तो उसमें भारत सरकार की कोई इंवोल्वमेंट नहीं थी। जब वोल्कर कमेटी की टेबल I to V में डिटेल्ड लिस्ट आई, जिसकी आधी लिस्ट के बारे में लोगों ने इंकार भी कर दिया, तो एक देश की सरकार को क्या करना चाहिए? २९-३० तारीख को देश के सारे अखबारों में इस बारे में चर्चा छाई रही। हमारी सरकार ने ६ तारीख को यानि एक हफ्ते के अंदर ही माननीय दयाल जी को नियुक्त किया के वे सारे तथ्यों को जुटाने के लिए खुद जाएं। हमारी सरकार ने और माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी ने २४ घंटे के अंदर ऐलान किया कि इसकी जड़ में क्या है यह पता लगाया जाएगा। यह देखने के लिए मैं इंक्वायरी अथॉरिटी माननीय आरएस पाठक के द्वारा बैठा रहा हूं। क्या सरकार ने तुरंत कार्रवाई नहीं की? साथ ही साथ विदेश मंत्री जिनको युनाइटेड नेशन्स के साथ बात करनी, विदेश मंत्रियों से बात करनी होती है और प्रोटोकोल को निभाना है, Government’s action, in stand, was executed within eight days. दुनिया के किसी भी देश ने ऐसा नहीं किया होगा। मैं किसी देश का नाम नहीं लूंगा, किसी देश के साथ रिश्ते बिगड़ें, मैं ऐसा नहीं चाहता हूं। जो देश सॉवरन हैं, लोकतंत्र जहां मजबूत है, वहां हमारी सरकार ने इतने कम समय के अंदर इंक्वायरी कमेटी ही बैठाई हो, ऐसा नहीं बल्कि उनको प्राइमरी कागज क्या-क्या मिलने चाहिए, उसकी छानबीन के लिए भी एक व्यक्ति भेजा है और तुरंत ट्रांजैक्शन के दायरे में, फैमा का वायलेशन हुआ या नहीं हुआ, उसके लिए भी डायरेक्टर ऑफ इंफोर्समेंट को आदेश दिया। क्या यह एक्शन नहीं है? Is it not an action? इसका तुलनात्मक विवरण मैं बाद में दूंगा। I will give you a comparative list later. सदन में जब चर्चा के लिए नियम १८४ के तहत और एडजर्नमेंट मोशन के तहत बात आई तो चर्चा करने से पहले हम बहुत लड़ाई कर सकते थे कि नियम १८४ में यह दायरा नहीं आता है, आरएस दयाल पर चर्चा क्यों होगी आदि, लेकिन पहले ही दिन सरकार की तरफ से हमने अपना रवैया साफ कर दिया कि चर्चा किसी भी नियम के तहत आ जाए, हम चर्चा करने के लिए तैयार हैं। हम तो दो दिन पहले ही चर्चा के लिए तैयार थे लेकिन एनडीए की विक्टरी की खुशी के लिए दो दिन और लग गये। सरकार का रवैया पहले दिन से साफ था।

जिन लोगों के, दुनिया के बारे में, लड़ाई के बारे में अलग-अलग ख्यालात हैं और स्वर्गीय पंडित नेहरू जी जब देश के प्रधान मंत्री नहीं बने थे, उससे बहुत पहले, दुनिया के देशों को, क्रांति के लिए, चाहे स्पेन की सविल-वार हो, चाहे अफ्रीका की लड़ाई हो, उनकी आवाज गुंजती थी कि हमारी सरकार कब बनेगी, आजादी कब मिलेगी, उस समय भी कांग्रेस पार्टी का फैसला था कि दुनिया में जो-जो देश अपने को आजाद कराना चाहते हैं, उनका साथ हम देंगे। और भारत सरकार …( व्यवधान) आप मुझे बोलने से मत रोकिए, मैं आपके खिलाफ कुछ नहीं कह रहा हूं।

MR. SPEAKER: This is not to be recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : nä¶É BÉEÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ ¤ÉxÉxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ BÉEàªÉÖÉÊxɺ] àÉÚ´ÉàÉå] +ÉÉ{ÉE <ÆÉÊbªÉÉ ºÉ¤É xÉä ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE® BÉEä nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä ÉÊVÉxÉ-ÉÊVÉxÉ |ÉÉÆiÉÉå àÉå iɤÉÉcÉÒ cÖ<Ç ªÉÉ iÉÉxÉɶÉÉcÉÒ cÖ<Ç, =xÉBÉEä ,ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ºÉnxÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® +ÉÉè® ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉc® +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ =~É<Ç* MÉàÉÉãÉ +ɤnÖãÉ xÉÉÉʺɮ BÉEä º´ÉäVÉ xÉc® µÉEÉ<ÉÊºÉºÉ ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® xÉäãºÉxÉ àÉÆbäãÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ®cÉ<Ç iÉBÉE càÉÉ®ä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå, BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ +ÉÉè® BÉÖEU +ÉxªÉ {ÉÉÉÌ]ªÉÉå xÉä càÉnnÉÔ +ÉÉè® ºÉcªÉÉäMÉ BÉEÉ {ÉÉÊ®SÉªÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ* àÉÖZÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ {ÉELÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <®ÉBÉE àÉå ºÉéBÉD¶ÉxÉ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE càÉÉ®ÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ +ÉÉè® BÉÖEU +ÉxªÉ {ÉÉÉÌ]ªÉÉå xÉä nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ ¤ÉÖãÉÆn BÉEÉÒ* ´É­ÉÇ 1994 àÉå nÉä ãÉÉJÉ ¤ÉSSÉä àÉ® MÉA* ´É­ÉÇ 1995 àÉå ABÉE ªÉÉ nÉä xÉcÉÓ {ÉÚ®ä 36 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉºÉ®É àÉå n´ÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä +É£ÉÉ´É àÉå JÉiàÉ cÉä MÉA* ´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ BÉEcÉÆ ºÉä +ÉÉA lÉä? ¤Éä¤ÉÉÒãÉÉäxÉ ºÉä +ÉÉA lÉä, BÉÖEU ªÉÚ{ÉÖEÉÊbºÉ BÉEä ÉÊBÉExÉÉ®ä ºÉä +ÉÉA lÉä* ®É­]Å ºÉÆPÉ àÉå càÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä +ÉÉè® nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä nä¶ÉÉå xÉä +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ =~ɪÉÉÒ* +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä àÉÉãÉÚàÉ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ àÉå ¤Éè~iÉä lÉä* <®ÉBÉE àÉå ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊnxÉ +É]èBÉE cÖ+ÉÉ, =ºÉ ÉÊnxÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå Jɽä cÉäBÉE® càÉxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE +É]èBÉE ¤ÉÆn BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä ÉËxÉnÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* àÉé ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ®ÉÒ ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä =ÉÊSÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ ºÉàÉZÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ´Éc JÉÖn BÉÖEU BÉEcä* càÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEä uÉ®É PÉÉä® ÉËxÉnÉ BÉEÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ, VÉÉä ÉËcnÉÒ àÉå lÉÉ* ªÉÉÊn +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå cÉäiÉÉ, iÉÉä +ÉÉBÉDªÉÚ{Éä¶ÉxÉ {ÉEÉäºÉÇ BÉEÉä iÉÖ®ÆiÉ {ÉiÉÉ ãÉMÉ VÉÉiÉÉ*…( व्यवधान) यह रिकार्ड में है।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Hindi is our national language, most treasured language. Nobody can insult Hindi.

… (Interruptions)

Not Recorded.


अध्यक्ष महोदय : वे बोल रहे हैं कि हिंदी समझने में देर लगी।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: He is speaking in Hindi.

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä VÉ¤É VÉ´ÉÉ¤É ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ, iÉ¤É 45 ºÉ´ÉÉãÉÉå BÉEä VÉ´ÉÉ¤É càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ nåMÉä* …( व्यवधान)

प्रो. रासा सिंह रावत (अजमेर) : +ÉÉ{É ÉËcnÉÒ BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : उन्होंने हिंदी में जो बयान दिया था, वह ठीक ही दिया था।

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : मैंन स्पीकर जी का अभिनन्दन किया कि उन्होंने हिंदी में बयान प्रस्तुत किया।…( व्यवधान) ‘strong condemnation’ was translated into ‘ghore ninda’.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I will see that. If anything is said against anybody, I will remove that.

श्री लाल मुनी चौबे (बक्सर) : ®É­]Å£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå +É{ÉàÉÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बोलिए।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री लाल मुनी चौबे : आप हिंदी में बोल रहे हैं, मैं सुन रहा हूं। …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बैठ जाइए।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: You leave it to me. If there is any such allegation I will remove it.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बैठ जाइए।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : प्रतिपक्ष के नेता का पूरा हक है कि सदन में सरकार की आलोचना करे और यदि सरकार की कोई गलती हो तो उसको सदन के सामने लाए। …( व्यवधान) वोल्कर रिपोर्ट के मामले में आडवाणी जी ने इस प्रकार की जिम्मेदारी निभाई। मैं आपके सामने दो बातें रखना चाहता हूं।

पहली बात, हमारी पार्टी के ऊपर काफी कीचड़ उछालने की कोशश हो रही है। मैं आडवाणी जी को बधाई दूंगा कि कांग्रेस का नाम इस मामले में आने पर उनको पीड़ा हुई। उनको जो दुख हुआ और उन्होंने जो हमदर्दी जताई उसके लिए मैं आपको बधाई देना चाहता हूं। लेकिन मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि कांग्रेस पार्टी अपनी पालिसी के बारे में, कॉमन एक्शन के बारे में अपने आप में सक्षम है। हमारे नेता ने पहले दिन ही साफ कर दिया है कि इसकी सच्चाई को उजागर करने के लिए इंक्वायरी होगी और अगर इंक्वायरी में कुछ सच्चाई सामने आएगी, तो जिम्मेदारी व्यक्ति के ऊपर कार्यवाही होगी।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing else will be recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

श्री प्रियरंजन दासमंशी: आप तुलना कीजिए। मैं हल्ला नहीं करना चाहता हूं। एक घटना वोल्कर की है जिस के साथ भारत सरकार की कोई जिम्मेदारी नहीं है। वोल्कर ने इराक रीजिम को जिम्मेदार ठहराया। इसके लिए न अटल जी, न आडवाणी जी और न ही मनमोहन सिंह जी जिम्मेदार थे। एक और घटना जिस के लिए भारत सरकार खुद जिम्मेदार थी, उसका डायरैक्ट इनवॉल्वमैंट हुआ, उनके बारे में हम लोगों ने क्या किया? दोनों की तुलना कीजिए। यह वोल्कर की इनक्वायरी रिपोर्ट है। सिक्योरिटी काउंसिल की एप्यॉन्टिड कमेटी है। जिस रिपोर्ट को आज की तारीख तक सिक्योरिटी काउंसिल ने डिसकस नहीं किया, अभी तक जनरल असेम्बली ने डिसकस नहीं किया लेकिन हम लोग डिसकम कर रहे हैं जो बहुत अच्छी बात है क्योंकि यह देश की सबसे बड़ी पंचायत है। दुनिया के किसी देश ने इसको डिसकस नहीं किया लेकिन हमने इसको डिसकस किया जो बहुत अच्छी बात है। सरकार की अभी नजर बगदाद में नहीं है, न्यूयार्क में नहीं है। दिल्ली में खुद अपनी आंखों के सामने, सदन के स्टोन थ्रो डिसटेंस में, साउथ ब्लॉक के स्टोन थ्रो डिसटेंस में, जब पत्रकारों ने अपनी पत्रकारिता की कुशलता दिखाने के लिए १३ मार्च को तहलका एपीसोड को छेड़ा जो लोग कैमरे में पकड़े गए थे, जिस पर बहस करने की मांग करते थक गए, कितने सदस्यों को दस बार चिल्लाते-चिल्लाते कार्डिऐक प्रॉबलम हो गई लेकिन १८४ पर डिसकशन छोड़िए, एडजर्नमैंट मोशन पर बहस छोड़िए १९३ पर भी डिसकशन नहीं माना। इन दोनों में अन्तर है। हमने एडजर्नमैंट मोशन मान लिया, नियम १८४ पर डिसकशन मान लिया, जिस की वजह से आप बहस करने के लिए खड़े हो गए। हमने सदन में आने से पहले एनक्वायरी बैठा दी और हमने इस पर बहस करवायी। जिन लोगों ने तहलका पर कार्रवाई की, आपने उनके घर छापा मारा, उन पत्रकारों को गिरफ्तार किया। जिस कम्पनी ने उसे स्पौंसर किया, उसे हिन्दुस्तान के बाहर कर दिया। दोनों में अन्तर है। …( व्यवधान)

* Not Recorded.

आप कुछ भी कहिए। कॉज ऑफ एक्शन कब होता है? वह जब होता है तब बहस होती है। कॉज आफ एक्शन उस दिन हो गया, जिस दिन तहलका के लिए इनक्वायरी बैठायी। कॉज ऑफ एक्शन उस दिन हो गया था जब मैन इन दी यूनिफॉर्म को कोर्ट मार्शल में भेज दिया था। आज मैन विदआउट यूनिफार्म के खिलाफ एफआईआर भी दर्ज नहीं की। कॉज आफ एक्शन के लिए बहस की मांग की लेकिन आपने नहीं करायी। आप इन सब चीजों को छोड़िए। आपकी कोई पॉलिसी नहीं है लेकिन हमारी पॉलिसी साफ है। हम खुल्लम-खुल्ला बहस चाहते हैं और इस डिसकशन को मान लिया तथा बहस के लिए आगे आए।

इराक में सैंक्शन की बात दुनिया को मालूम है। इसे वोल्कर रिपोर्ट ने भी मान लिया। मैं पैरा पढ़ कर सुना सकता हूं। इटरनेशनल प्राइस के नीचे, एसक्रो एकाउन्ट के जरिए उनको तेल बेचने की इजाजत मिली और हयूमैनटेरियन ग्रुप्स में जो आता था, उसकी कीमत इंटरनेशनल प्राइज के ऊपर थी। इराक का फैसला इराक करे। हम सद्दाम हुसैन के एडवाइजर नहीं थे, न उनके फाइनेन्स मनिस्टर थे। उन्होंने फैसला किया और उसकी आपूर्ति की। रिपोर्ट मे कहा गया कि फंड्स हयूमनटेरियन नीडस को पूरा के लिए इस्तेमाल होते हैं। इनमें थोड़ा खर्चा कमेटी पर भी होता है जिस का काम वैपन्स ऑफ मास डिस्ट्रक्शन को सर्च करना है।

तीसरी बात यह है कि आडवाणी जी, आप देश के गृह मंत्री और डिप्टी प्राइम मनिस्टर रह चुके हैं। आपको देश की पूरी चीज मालूम है। आप बताएं कि जब वैपन्स ऑफ मास डिसट्रक्शन कमेटी नियुक्त हुई तब सद्दाम हुसैन सत्ता में थे, राज कर रहे थे, हम लोग रिश्ता निभाते थे चाहे अटल जी निभाएं, या पहले और कोई निभाए, चाहे मनमोहन सिंह जी निभाएं। हम लोग उसे निभाते थे। ऑयल फॉर फूड प्रोग्राम की इनक्वायरी कब बैठायी? वह अप्रैल २००४ में बैठायी। जब सद्दाम का राज और मंत्रिमंडल कैद में था, कोई मंत्री मर गया था, कोई नजरबंद था, किसी का ट्रायल चल रहा था। Weapons for mass destruction is carrying 28 per cent of the money of the transactions of the escrow accounts.

At that time, nobody raised an issue, which is right and which is wrong. यूनाइटेड नेशन ने जब देखा, यूनाइटेड नेशन्स का जो मैम्बर है। We are proud of being a member of the United Nations. We do not like to question the authority of the United Nations. We respect the United Nations. यूनाइटेड नेशन्स में सिक्योरिटी काउंसिल के सदस्यों ने सोचा कि ऑयल फार फूड प्रोग्राम क्या किया जाए, इसमें घपला हुआ या नहीं, यूनाइटेड नेशन्स के पदाधिकारियों ने गलती की है या नहीं, इसे देखने के लिए एक कमेटी वर्ष २००४ में बनी। अब कमेटी किससे बात करेगी? मान लीजिए हमारे खिलाफ शिकायत हो, मेरी मां अगर कैद में हो, मेरे पिताजी भी कैद में हों या मेरे भाई का कत्ल हो गया हो तो मेरे घर की तरफ से बयान कौन देगा, या तो मेरा पड़ौसी देगा या कोतवाली की पुलिस देगी। The Government operated the whole programme. I am not going to comment whether it is right or wrong. It is up to the United Nations to comment. I will not make any comment whether they are right or wrong. मैं यह कहने के लिए तैयार हूं और राजनीतिक परिचर्चा के लिए भी तैयार हूं। अप्रैल २००४ में जब सत्र शुरू हुआ था तो उसमें यह कहा गया था कि रिकॉर्ड जल गए, इसके बारे में डाटा में भी कुछ नहीं है, कुछ ऑयल मनिस्ट्री के पास रिकॉर्ड है, फलाना मनिस्ट्री के पास कुछ रिकॉर्ड है और कुछ रिकॉर्ड जल गए। रिकॉर्ड कौन सप्लाई कर रहे थे, मनिस्टर लोग सप्लाई कर रहे थे और मनिस्टर कौन थे, मैं मनिस्टर्स के बारे में टिप्पणी नहीं करना चाहता हूं, जो वर्ष २००४ के मनिस्टर थे, वर्ष २००३ के सद्दाम रिजीम के मनिस्टर्स थे। उनका राजनीतिक तर्क क्या है, मैं इसके बारे में टिप्पणी नहीं करना चाहता हूं, मेरे बाकी के जो साथी हैं वे इस पर बहस करेंगे। इस तरह से कुल मिलाजुला कर सब्सटांशियल रिपोर्ट तैयार हो गई। I just like to read one paragraph, Mr. Speaker, Sir, from Part I of the Report. इसका सचेतक राजनीतिज्ञों और पार्टियों को अंदाजा है। अब रिपोर्ट की शुरूआत देखिए।

Sir, I repeat that I am not going to question the Report, oppose the Report or criticize the Report. I am talking about the content, the language. I am quoting page 1623. It says:

“The Report illustrates the manner in which Iraq manipulated the programme to dispense contracts on the basis of political preference and to derive illicit payments from companies that obtained oil on humanitarian grounds.”

Illicit payments have been defined in three parts. … (Interruptions) I am coming to that. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He is reading it.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, illicit payments have been defined in three parts, part I defined by Saddam regime. मुझे पैसा मिल रहा था, मैंने सरचार्ज लगाया। सरचार्ज की परसेंटेज सात परसेंट, दस परसेंट या पन्द्रह परसेंट थी, उनके हिसाब से था कि जो करें हम ही करें। यह अच्छा था या बुरा लेकिन उस समय उस देश का यही कानून था। यह हमारा इन्टरप्रेटेशन है कि यह सरचार्ज जो पे किया गया यह इलसिट पे किया गया। इसका मतलब है कि यूनाइटेड नेशन्स के साथ जो रिश्ता हुआ एकाउंट के जरिए से उनमें सरचार्ज नहीं था। लेकिन सरचार्ज के खिलाफ जो पैसा मिल रहा था वे गलत ले रहे थे, गलत दे रहे थे, वे चार्ज करेंगे क्योंकि कन्ट्री का अपना-अपना एन्फोर्समेंट है। वे गलत ले रहे थे, इसकी जांच में वोल्कर ने कुछ रैफ्रेंस दिया था। जिन देशों का रैफ्रेंस है वे देश उनको जवाब देंगे। देश में मौजूदा सरकार होती है …( व्यवधान)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I request him to yield for a minute. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have no objection if he yields.


SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Mr. Speaker, Sir, he has made some of the observations about the Volcker Committee. I wish that every Minister at least must take note of the fact that this Committee was appointed by the Secretary General but ratified by the United Nations General Assembly, of which we are also a member. So, this is our Committee in a way. He cannot cast any doubts … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He said that he is not casting any doubts.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : I said so. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : After all, Saddam was no longer there. It is true. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, I am thankful to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I did not criticize. I said that we respect the United Nations and we are a proud member and also about the Committee’s outcome.

I am coming to the main important point.… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह आप क्या कर रहे हैं। क्या यह सही है। He has not yielded. It is not to be recorded. Nothing will go on record unless he yields.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: You see, your leader asked whether he yields or not, and then he spoke.

* Not Recorded.


I now take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, Sir, to read out a Press statement from The Hindu, dated 19.11.2005. हमारे पूर्व तेल मंत्री, श्री राम नाइक जी ने बड़ी सच्चाई के साथ यह कहा, जिसके लिए मैं उन्हें बधाई देना चाहता हूं। उन्होंने क्या कहा –

The then Minister of the Government of India said, ” I knew about oil surcharge in 2002.” He said, “I knew.” It is fine that he knew. What did he do? I quote: “The former Petroleum Minister in the National Democratic Alliance Government Ram Naik said on Friday that he knew as early as July 2002. I remember July 2002 is a very important period to me as per the Volcker Report. Why? It is because Volcker’s findings say that autumn 2002 was the peak period of the highest surcharge amount of transactions which have been done between the business groups of various countries. “In July, 2002, the then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was asking for a surcharge on oil coupons under the Oil-for-Food programme controlled by the United Nations.”

Addressing the Press, Ram Naik said, “Leading a large delegation of business men to Iraq, he gave a letter from the former Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Mr. Saddam Hussein. He was offered coupons for Indian Oil by the Iraqi President himself.” Mr. Naik said very rightly, “But he refused the offer when he was told that a surcharge of one dollar per barrel would have to be paid above the United Nations’ price.” Mr. Ram Naik did the right thing. But what is next?

The next is very important. Here I come to the conclusion. “Mr. Naik, however, admitted that the businessmen who were part of the delegation would have done business with Iraq. When a Reporter said that deals worth more than a billion dollars were done, Mr. Naik did not deny or contradict the claim saying that he did not have figures. He was asked whether he had facilitated the deals for the Indian companies, Mr. Naik said, “as a leader of the Indian delegation it was his business to do so.” Could not have some kickbacks come his way or that of other leaders in the NDA via the Indian companies? Mr. Naik said, “This is an allegation.”

Asked whether he wanted the Indian businessmen not to flout the UN laws, Mr. Naik’s answer was, “No.” He also replied in the negative to the question when asked whether he had warned the then Finance Ministry that these Indian firms could have violated foreign exchange regulations. Mr. Naik could not explain why the NDA Government did not expect other Indian companies to follow what was considered a good ethical position for Indian Oil—that is refusal of the oil coupons.

I would like to say that for the Indian Oil, which is a public sector company, Mr. Naik did the right thing. He said, “No surcharge; go by the UN route.” But he admitted he facilitated the business deals of the businessmen he took with him in the delegation. He is not very clear about them, and when the question was put, he said, it could be an allegation. I repeat, it is also an allegation which will be proved in the R.S. Pathak Commission.

क्या राम नाइक जी साबित करेंगे कि २००२ में जब आपको पता था कि सरचार्ज के जरिये हिन्दुस्तान की कंपनी चाहे ‘ए’ हो, ‘बी’ हो, ‘सी’ हो या ‘डी’ हो, चाहे मेरा भाई हो या मेरा चाचा हो, यह काम कर रहे हैं। जब पैट्रोलियम मंत्री को मालूम था, आडवाणी जी उस समय आप उप-प्रधान मंत्री थे, क्या भारत सरकार का यह कर्तव्य नहीं बनता था कि भारत के नाम पर कोई काला धब्बा न लगे, इसके लिए हम कदम उठायें और इतने ढंग से कदम उठायें क…( व्यवधान) आज यह कहना ठीक नहीं है, किसी पर कीचड़ उछालने के लिए हम पार्लियामैन्ट में नहीं आते हैं। आपने सही बात शुरू की जिसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूं। लेकिन भारत के सम्मान के विरुद्ध अगर काम हो रहा है और पूर्व पैट्रोलियम मंत्री को मालूम था कि ऐसा हो सकता है तो आपने कदम क्यों नहीं उठाए? हम यह भी कहेंगे कि …( व्यवधान) हमारी पार्टी के बारे में आप कहेंगे हीै, ऐसा हम लोग कह चुके हैं। …( व्यवधान)

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा (दक्षिण दिल्ली) : +ÉÉ{É VªÉÚbÉÒÉʶɪÉãÉ <xÉBÉD´ÉɪɮÉÒ BÉE®ÉAÆ* +ÉÉ{É =ºÉºÉä £ÉÉMÉ BÉDªÉÉå ®cä cé? …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : त्रिपाठी जी, आपको तो भाषण देने का मौका मिलेगा।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : मैं यह नहीं कहूंगा कि यू.एन. की रिपोर्ट में क्या है और क्या नहीं है। वोल्कर कमेटी ने रिपोर्ट दे दी और उसकी छानबीन होगी। जहां तक भारत का ट्रू ट्रांजैक्शंस से संबंध है, उसके लिए हम कटिबद्ध हैं और उसमें हम क्या कर सकते हैंै, वह हम देखेंगे। मैं राजनीतिक द्ृष्टिकोण से कहना चाहता हूं कि जिन लोगों ने इराक को सपोर्ट किया, जिन लोगों ने इराक के लिए राजनैतिक सपोर्ट जाहिर किया, उन लोगों के बारे में जो कुछ हुआ, वह किताबों में है लेकिन वोल्कर ने एक अच्छा काम किया। इसके लिए मैं उनको बधाई देना चाहता हूं। उन्होंने अपनी रिपोर्ट में जो कहा हैै, मैं उसे पढ़कर सुनाना चाहता हूं।

In page 10, the Report says:

“Iraq’s policies did not prevent companies from disfavoured countries from obtaining Iraqi crude oil. A substantial volume of oil under contract with Russian companies was purchased and financed by companies based in the United States and elsewhere. Many of the letters of credit executed under the programme were financed by non-contracting companies. Table IV provides a listing of the underlying financiers of oil companies that the Committee was able to identify.”

In the very next page, it says: “The names of these companies typically do not appear on SOMO contracts or United Nations records.” Therefore, would it be proper on the part of the House to decide and make a conclusive comment on the Report unless it is comprehensively discussed by the Security Council and adopted by the General Assembly, by its findings; or, so far as India part is concerned, unless it is not scrutinised with authenticity on the unverified findings, by the Pathak Inquiry Authority?

Advaniji, I humbly appeal to you, being the Leader of the Opposition, would it be proper for anyone to score a point against any individual just for a character assassination campaign as once somebody tried to do with you on the issue of ‘Jain hawala diary case’? क्या दुनिया खत्म हो गई अगर डायरी लिख दी? आपने उस समय कहा था कि क्या यह तरीका ठीक है और क्या यही नीति हम अपने देश के लिए अपनाएंगे? …( व्यवधान)

The Government, through the Authority, shall find the truth; and whatever is the truth, the Government shall act upon. Please do not teach us lessons how the Congress Party should function or how the Congress Party should behave.

The Congress Party knows how to pay the price to support the cause of the world when it comes between peace and war. The Congress Party knows how to pay the price when it comes between a colonial oppression and liberation. The Congress Party knows how to pay the price when it takes a stand against the sanctions on South Africa to support the struggle against apartheid. The Congress Party knows how to pay the price in respected quarters of the world when it supports the battle led by Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. The Congress Party knows how efforts were made to assassinate the character of Madam Indira Gandhi and later the world admitted her as a great human leader. The Congress Party knows how you tried to humiliate and assassinate the character of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, which was ultimately upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Congress Party knows how much sacrifice he made for that. The Congress Party would continue to seek the outcome of the R.S. Pathak Inquiry Authoirty and stand before the people. We need not be taught and guided by the BJP.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Sir, when the Loha Purush of the BJP rose to speak, we hoped that he has a lot of ammunition and he will justify why two precious days of the Winter Session have been wasted. But ultimately, the mountain produced – you understand what he produced. You have seen, you have heard. That is it. He has said in the very beginning about the credibility, accuracy and how dependable the documents are of the Paul Volcker report. Meticulously the records were kept as reported by a very important functionary of the United Nations.

If you prepare a list of the destruction in Iraq for the last 15 years before invasion, during the Sanctions period and which is continuing till today, more than 1.5 million people lost their lives who are all civilians and more than 0.5 million children died. Who is the biggest beneficiary of all these 15 years of Sanctions – both pre-Sanctions and post-Sanctions? I have calculated it. Eighty per cent of the looted products had gone to benefit the American multinational oil companies through smuggling, through under-pricing and through various methods. But not even a single American company has been named. No document could be found when the meticulously kept records of the SOMO were made available to Paul Volcker.

I am not accusing anyone. But there are several instances within the Paul Volcker report and elsewhere also which indicates it. The museums were looted, precious valuables could be found in the auction houses of London. Those who loved these important articles, valuable articles relating to Iraqi civilisation detected them. These people see that massive corruption was involved in the Oil for Food programme.

Unfortunately, I am very very shocked to know that the Loha Purush of the BJP Party and the Leader of the Opposition in this House also says the same thing as what the American administration says. On these Sanctions, the whole world said, the public opinion compelled and that too it started as a Resolution in 1995 which could be implemented at a later date only. But what had happened? Eighty three per cent of the living standards, availability of the calorific effect improved only after this Oil for Food programme was introduced. Who has admitted about child mortality rate? It is not only by the American Press but it is there throughout the world. I am not questioning whether it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly about the antecedents of Paul Volcker and all these things. But even before the reports came, what is being circulated; what was said by important people about the credibility? A report came in the Wall Street Journal by a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. It said the Volcker report is just another trick. The CPI(M) is not saying that. The CPI(M) on the very first day demanded that let there be an enquiry and let it be incorporated of the misdeeds and all sorts of allegations that can be heard. It said : “The Volcker report is just another trick of the neo conservatives to blow away anyone who gets in the way of their plan of global empire.”

It is not the CPI(M) saying; it is not the Congress Party saying; it is not Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi saying. It is being said by many others. I can go on like anything. American companies were involved in the scandal mostly through oil being smuggled. Who were the beneficiaries? Halliburton, one US company, Dick Cheney and others are named. What about the credibility? Paul Volcker Report did not care to look into all this. No document could be found in SOMO or elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: The names should not be addressed.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Yes. What is the credibility? The name of one Member of UK Parliament, George Galloway, who was a great supporter of the Iraqi cause, came just as Shri Natwar Singh’s name came. He challenged. He appeared before the Senate. What happened ultimately? The Senators, who had been making the charges, flew away, vanished.

The charges are not against the Congress Party. It is not called the Congress Party; it is called India Congress. They do not know the name of the party. They do not know whether Shri Natwar Singh is a Foreign Minister or not, but we shall have to believe it only because it came from Paul Volcker. Is he credible? Yes, of course. Which are the other names? Of course, there is the name of son of Mr. Kofi Annan. … (Interruptions) There is the name of Megawati Sukarnoputri, the former President of Indonesia, the Russian Foreign Minister, important leaders of the African National Congress, even of those respected priests and clerics who stood in support of the Iraqi cause. The name of a catholic priest who had never seen a barrel of oil came, but still we have to believe because … (Interruptions) Signatures were forged of the Russian Foreign Minister. It has been admitted. … (Interruptions)

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : You tell the Government to withdraw the Commission, if you are sure that the Report was forged. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Harin Pathak, your name is there in the list.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing is to be recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: Your name is in the list. You would be making contribution. You note the points.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Those who will interrupt will not be called. If you interrupt, your name will not be called.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : This reference to forgeries came when the forgeries were taking place. It is not that CPI(M) published in its journal that forgeries had taken place long back, only after everything has come to this Parliament. No. It came out in Hazim al Amin’s Al Hayat in November 2003 that forgeries were taking place. Xerox copies of everything and Minister’s letterheads have been collected. It came out in Sajad Ahmed Ali’s Duniya al Watan, a Palestinian journal. It is not that it is published today after the name of Natwar Singh has

*Not Recorded


come, after the name of the Congress Party has come. The Report is being taken with sheer neglect and indifference the world over.

Unfortunately, I am not a great supporter of everything the Congress is doing. The only person Shri Natwar Singh had to leave. He was the Foreign Minister. The Government has taken its own decision. Nowhere a single person has been affected. Big names have come, but more big names have not come. Paul Volcker has not incorporated the names of 80 per cent of the oil companies who benefited. … (Interruptions) These names have come. Paul Volcker has himself admitted. Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was reporting about it, the George Galloway story. He saw the story. George Galloway has been supporting their cause. What is the pattern in accusations?

What is the pattern in the accusation? Is this yellow man, that white man and that black man chosen according to his colour? No. There is a pattern in the accusation. It is those who opposed the sanctions, those who opposed the invasion that are accused. India has a tradition of nonalignment and standing by the sovereignty of the free nations of the world. That is our legacy. On the basis of that legacy our foreign policy is framed. Who are the parties that are accused? The Russian Foreign Minister, the administrative officers who have been working in the office of the Russian President, Indonesian leaders, African leaders, France – is not there a pattern?

Unfortunately, there is a pattern in the support of the BJP and the way they are extending to it. There is a pattern in it. We in this House wanted to condemn the sending in of troops. What happened then? Some people talked about Hindi and Angrezi, Angrezi and Hindi. The whole world knows this. When there was a Resolution it was said, ‘No, no, condemnation is a word you cannot use on the floor’. But in Hindi it can be Ninda!

What were we doing during the period of sanctions? Was RSS collecting money for the benefit of sanctions-hit children of Iraq? No. Who did it? The Indian youth did it. The responsible political parties did it. We had sent medicines. We know what sanctions mean. The Cuban people know what sanctions mean. Is it they who decided what the price of oil will be?

The Leader of the Opposition was talking about sovereignty and compromising the decision-making process. This Government, this Congress, this Natwar Singh is not sovereignty. What is sovereignty? A Government elected by its own people cannot decide what the price of its oil will be! What will happen to the BJP if the price of Himachal apple is determined by the American Administration, by the WTO at Geneva? What will they do?

I take pride in saying that I will work in the interest of the suffering people. It does not matter to me if you call the measure illicit or call it not illicit, I am a patriot. The people of Iraq will vouch for it. Going by the little amount of money paid as surcharge, you may call it illicit. How much is that money? How much will the total money paid as surcharge, what is being described as kickbacks, comes to? It is less than two per cent. It is 100 billion dollars. Eighty per cent benefit goes to the American companies. Still they are not satisfied and invasion takes place. The Leader of the Opposition speaks of sovereignty. But he has forgotten about the sovereignty of Iraqi Government. There lies a pattern. There is a pattern in the BJP’s stand.

Yes, Paul Volcker cannot have any motive behind his report. Why should he have a motive? He does not know the name of the Congress Party. He calls it India Congress. He does not know that it is Indian National Congress. He did not know that Natwar Singh was a Minister. The name does not matter. The role smells as sweet with any other name. When you talk of the credibility of the report, the whole world has treated it with indifference. But the BJP is taking it up as the most urgent issue. When the Winter Session started, people have started looking towards us with expectations. There have been earthquakes. There have been floods. There are issues of workers which are required to be highlighted. We have been thinking of demanding to know what the Government has done to fulfil the commitments made in the National Common Minimum Programme.

The farmers are dying. But we are not getting the opportunity to discuss those burning issues in the House. The whole House is being held to ransom. Two precious days have been wasted in a small period. When the Loh Purush stood up, we thought that there would be very big justification for wasting two precious days. But what the mountain produced, we know.

Now, after the credibility, let me come to the next point.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you the only speaker from your party?

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Another speaker is also there.

MR. SPEAKER: Then, you have to share the time.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Sir, I am sorry. I shall conclude soon.

The big wrongs committed by the Bush Administration, by the US Imperialism have been ignored by them. Is it not a big wrong to fix the price of oil of another sovereign country? It was being decided at Manhattan although there was a Committee, the Security Council 661. But the real pricing was being done at Manhattan. Is it not a fact that the sovereign rights of a sovereign nation were being taken away? Who fixed the prices? Why was it so? Paul Volcker did not inquire into it. Why? It is a big question. I would, only on the floor of this House, ask and let the nation know. The whole world is asking this question.

Will the prices of apples of Himachal Pradesh be determined by some other people from outside? Shall we accept it? If we do not accept it in the case of fixing of prices of apples of Himachal Pradesh by someone from outside, why should the Iraqi people accept the fixing of prices of their oil by someone from outside?

Now, in whose interests is the surcharge? It is a massive corruption. The BJP has suddenly discovered what corruption means. We know their track record. We know, what happened in Tehelka. He had been speaking and he demanded that there should be an expert committee to look into the foreign funding. Was he sleeping when it produced a list of the RSS-led NGOs?

SHRI HANNAN MOLLAH (ULUBERIA): It was more than Rs. 1,000 crore.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : He was sleeping as a Home Minister. I am not casting any aspersion on the efficiency and the competency of anyone. But he did not care to look into that. And now, he is demanding that there should be an expert committee! Yes, let that be done. We shall produce certain things as to how the RSS had been taking money, how the NRIs had been giving money.

Sir, since you have rung the bell, I would try to just conclude as early as possible. I told you that there is a pattern. I am coming to the Ram Naik part, as to what Mr. Ram Naik had stated.

MR. SPEAKER: When he was a Minister.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Yes, Sir, when he was a Minister. In July, he staid that the ‘IOC was told to pay the surcharge but I am such a man, how could I allow my public sector to pay the surcharge? So, I stopped it.’

But what about the industrialists who had been travelling with him? What personal benefit was accrued to them? Do you know, Mr. Pathak how much was it? I have calculated it.

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : What do you want from me?

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : How much he benefited to that industrialist? It was Rs. 1400 crore… (Interruptions) It was Rs. 1400 crore… (Interruptions)


SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : It was Rs. 69 million dollar… (Interruptions)



SHRI HARIN PATHAK : The name of the beneficiary is not Ram Naik. The name of the beneficiary is Natwar Singh and the Congress party… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Pal, please address the Chair.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : I am addressing the Chair.

15.00 hrs.

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : Volcker Report says that the money went to the Congress Party and Shri Natwar Singh.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He will tell us. Please conclude.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : There was 69 million barrels of oil and a large part of it was allowed to be lifted by an American company. If you calculate the total benefit – four dollars margin – huge amount of money was shared by that company.… (Interruptions) When next BJP speaker speaks, he may say why is it so. I do not hold any brief for the Congress. Let there be an inquiry. All these issues like the companies benefited the most… (Interruptions)

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : We also demand an inquiry.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : There may have been some companies who supplied the humanitarian goods. That is their right. Why should they get involved? I do not hold any brief for anyone. Let there be a thorough, fruitful and purposeful inquiry. If the BJP has any meticulously collected record, they can supply but what has happened in Iraq is known to the rest of the world. They destroyed everything. The documents supplied by SOMO are not sacred documents on the basis of which credibility should not and cannot be questioned. With these words I oppose the Motion.

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : You should sit there and speak on behalf of the Congress. You are sitting on the wrong bench.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing, except Shri George Fernandes, will go on record.

(Interruptions) …*

अध्यक्ष महोदय : इससे क्या होता है, इसे छोड़िए।

…( व्यवधान)

एक माननीय सदस्य : आप इस सीट पर क्यों बैठे हैं, आप अमरीकी सीनेट में जाकर बैठिए।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : किसे बोल रहे हैं? कहीं मुझे तो नहीं बोल रहे हैं?

…( व्यवधान)

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : Sir, he is sending me to the American Senate. I am proud to be a Member of this House. I do not want to go there.

MR. SPEAKER: You do not respond to everything. That should be taken as humour!

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : People of my city feel proud to send me here sixth time.… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : थोड़ा हंसी-मज़ाक अच्छा रहता है।

…( व्यवधान)

* Not Recorded.

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, <ºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {É® +É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE VÉÉä ¤ÉcºÉ cÖ<Ç cè*…( व्यवधान)

कुँवर मानवेन्द्र सिंह (मथुरा) : <xÉBÉEä ºÉÖxÉxÉä ºÉä {ÉcãÉä àÉé VÉÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: This is not right. He is an hon. Member.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He is a senior Member of the House and it is enough for me.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member yields, nothing else is recorded without my permission.

(Interruptions) … *

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Manvendra Singh, you have to get rid of your bad habits.

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, <ºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {É® +É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE VÉÉä SÉSÉÉÇ cÖ<Ç cè, =ºÉºÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉå ºÉÉàÉxÉä +ÉɪÉÉÒ cé…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Who is it? Please stand up. As soon as you will stand up, your name will be recorded and you will get the order.

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : àÉé =xÉ ÉʴɭɪÉÉå {É® SÉSÉÉÇ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ, …*

MR. SPEAKER: It is not relevant.

… (Interruptions)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : àÉéxÉä ªÉcÉÆ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè*…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Give it to me, I shall strike it off.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have deleted it.

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : ªÉcÉÆ ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {É® SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, àÉé =ºÉºÉä ¤ÉÉc® xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ*…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please refer to Volcker Committee Report.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please sit down. If there is anything unparliamentary or improper, I shall look into it. But there is a method of raising it. You can ask for

* Not Recorded.

a Point of Order or you can ask him to yield. You cannot just stand up and start shouting.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Goyal, please sit down.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please do not go beyond this subject.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह स्पैसीफिक सब्जैक्ट है।

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : मैं यहां स्पैसीफिक बात रखने के लिए ही खड़ा हुआ हूं और वह यह है कि हम जानना चाहेंगे कि कांग्रेस पार्टी का श्री फार्मी गोनी, लम्बार्डी के गवर्नर, नार्दन इटली से क्या रिश्ता है, क्योंकि इस चर्चा के लिए उसका महत्व है।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह सही नहीं है।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the Congress President cannot look after herself.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CHANDIGARH): Sir, I am on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order and under which rule?

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL : Sir, I wish to refer to Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure.

We are on a motion – as you read it – relating to the Volcker Committee Report. Rule 58(iii) says:

“the motion shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence involving responsibility of the Government of India.”

Here Mr. George Fernandes is referring to the Italy’s connection with the Congress Party. This is what the point of order is.

MR. SPEAKER: I uphold your point of order.

Mr. Fernandes, please do not go into this unless you establish its connection with the Volcker Committee Report. Therefore, first you make a foundation of it.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You lay the foundation of the connection with the Volcker Committee Report.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: First you make a connection with the Volcker Committee Report.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: What is the relation with Volcker Committee Report. If it is connected with the Volcker Committee Report, you lay the foundation. You are putting a question without laying the foundation of how Italy concern is relevant so far as Volcker Report is concerned. You have to establish that first. You do that, then I will allow it. Show from the report how this Italian concern comes in. I am not stopping it provided it relates to Volcker Report. I am only saying that.

SHRI GEORGE FERNANDES : Sir, it entirely relates to this debate here.

श्री फार्मी गोनी, तेल के जो कूपन दिए हैं, सबसे बड़ा हिस्सा उनका है।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : क्या वह इसमें है?

…( व्यवधान)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : जी हां।…( व्यवधान)

श्री हरिन पाठक : +ÉÉ®AºÉAºÉ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉ {ÉäVÉ {É® lÉÉ?…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: It is not right. You should not interrupt like this. You cannot put a snide question like that Mr. Pathak. You are a senior Member. You have yourself said that you are here for six times. Do not make such snide references.

…( व्यवधान)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : इस एक व्यक्ति को दो करोड़ ४७ लाख बैरल तेल के लिए कूपन्स दिये गये, जिसमें से …( व्यवधान) आप लोग सुनने के लिए तैयार हो जाओ। …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, why are you disturbing? This is really unfair. I have already said that if it is connected to the Volcker Committee Report, then he can refer to it. He is trying to make out a case for that. He is trying to relate it.

… (Interruptions)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA 9 ãÉÉJÉ 45 cVÉÉ® bÉãÉ® ÉÊnªÉä MɪÉä, …. *

MR. SPEAKER: This will not go on record.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: You are making an allegation against a Party.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have already deleted it.

Shri Fernandes, you are a very senior Member. You cannot make such allegations without any notice to me.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Manabendra Singh, you are creating difficulty.

Shri Fernandes, please wait for a minute.

The motion under discussion is about the action against Indian entities and individuals. This House is not concerned with whether any Italian concern has made money or not. Therefore, if the names of any Indian entities or individuals have been mentioned in the Report, then you can refer to them. How can this Government answer for an Italian concern?

… (Interruptions)




* Not Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: I have already deleted that remark. That allegation cannot go without any notice and without any proper procedure.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप लोग बैठ जाइये।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : इस साल मई महीने की पांच तारीख को …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : क्या बात है? मान्यवर तो बोलते हैं, लेकिन बात नहीं सुनते।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: There are many hon. Members who will be participating in this debate. Names of the Members are here. I will call them. Therefore, please allow the debate on this important issue to be conducted properly. I am requesting Shri Geroge Fernandes that he is a very senior and experienced Member and he should not refer to something beyond the scope of the Resolution.

… (Interruptions)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : <ºÉ {É® VÉ¤É <x´Éäº]ÉÒMÉä¶ÉxÉ ¶ÉÖ°ô cÖ+ÉÉ, iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEä iÉiBÉEÉãÉ ¤ÉÉn <ºÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä gÉÉÒ xÉ]´É® É˺Éc +ÉÉè® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ, nÉäxÉÉå xÉä ºÉÆnä¶É £ÉäVÉÉ lÉÉ* …( व्यवधान)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: Sir, let him quote the page number and which part of the report he is referring to. Which page of the annexure is he referring to? … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You show it. Otherwise, it has no relevance to the Volcker Report. Do not take it.

(Interruptions) … *

MR. SPEAKER: I have deleted it. I have already expunged it.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Bansal, I have expunged it. Shri Fernandes, please confine yourself to the Volcker Report relating to Indian entities and individuals.

* Not Recorded.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I am again reminding the hon. Members. This is the Motion given by the Leader of Opposition himself. I have only added the word ‘allegedly’ because that is the form. I am sure Shri Advani will agree with me. It says: “Central Government’s failure to take proper action against Indian entities and individuals allegedly involved in non-contractual beneficiaries, etc. as reported in the Report of the UN.” Therefore, that Report must mention the names of individuals or entities. And on that basis, you can make reference.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have said that. Therefore, Shri Fernandes, please restrict to the form of the Motion itself. That is the ambit of the discussion. I am requesting you.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have already given my ruling. Why are you standing up? Therefore, please restrict yourself to the ambit of discussion.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing else will be recorded except what Shri George Fernandes says. The Leader of Opposition spoke within that ambit. He did not refer to anything which is objectionable.

(Interruptions) …* 

MR. SPEAKER:    Valuable time of the House is going on.   I have given my ruling.  If I need anybody’s help, I will ask for it.  Kunwar Manvendra Singh, you will be in trouble one day.   

… (Interruptions) 

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़  : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É ºÉÉÒÉÊàÉiÉ SÉSÉÉÇ àÉÉxÉBÉE® ¤ÉiÉÉ ®cä cé iÉÉä…( व्यवधान)  

अध्यक्ष महोदय  : वही मोशन में है। 


  * Not Recorded. 

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़  : càÉ ªÉc àÉÉxÉBÉE® SÉãÉ ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE   * और नटवर सिंह जी इन दो लोगों का नाम इसमें सामने आया है।…( व्यवधान)  

अध्यक्ष महोदय  : नहीं । 

…( व्यवधान) 

MR. SPEAKER:  I do not know what is happening here.  Let him yield first.  I can only allow you if he yields.   

… (Interruptions) 

श्री अशोक प्रधान (खुर्जा) : ºÉÉ®ÉÒ °ôÉËãÉMÉ càÉÉ®ä ÉÊãÉA cÉÒ cè* =xÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉDªÉÉ BÉEÉä<Ç âóÉËãÉMÉ xÉcÉÓ cè? …( व्यवधान)  

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह क्या हो रहा है ? Please sit down. I would appeal to all the hon. Members. This is the House of the People of India. There are some rules, regulations and procedures to be followed. Now, he has yielded. Shri Advani wants to say something.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Sir, the disturbance now has been only because Shri George Fernandes took the name of Shrimati Sonia Gandhi.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not now. He has been referring to names which are not permissible.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I did not say that when he mentioned the names earlier.

He rightly said that he has to lay the foundation before he refers to any other name. It has to be Indian entities. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He need not refer to her name. Her name is not mentioned here.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Her name is not mentioned here. But she is the President of the Congress Party. … (Interruptions)

*Not Recorded



MR. SPEAKER: Shri George Fernandes, you can refer to the Congress. I do not mind that. You can refer to the Party.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record. You know that. I have said that no individual’s name can be taken.

(Interruptions) …*

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉÖZÉä xÉcÉÓ àÉÉãÉÚàÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =xcÉåxÉä BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ ºÉä <ºiÉÉÒ{ÉEÉ nä ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : ठीक है, आपको नाम लेने की जरूरत नहीं है। आप पार्टी का रेफरेंस देकर अपनी बात कहिए।

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : महोदय, पार्टी का कोई साइनबोर्ड नहीं होता है। पार्टी के कुछ सदस्य होते हैं, अध्यक्ष होते हैं।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: You can refer to the Party.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please take your seats. I will not allow it. Nothing will go on record.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please take your seats.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri George Fernandes, you are a very senior Member.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Will you please keep quiet?

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have allowed this debate in spite of the fact that there is an Inquiry going on because of its importance. I have told you that. Shri George

*Not Recorded


Fernandes, since you started speaking, you are only mentioning names which are not relevant here. You are naming some hon. Members of the House. Her name

is not mentioned in that Report. Why do you not mention the name of the Party? Restrict yourself to that.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, you please sit down.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have not asked for your support.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri V.K. Thummar, please go to your seat. Unless I permit you, do not open your mouth.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This will not go on record. Sorry. It seems that you are not going to speak. Already he has mentioned the names. What are you talking? I won’t allow this.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: I have said that I have not allowed it.

(Interruptions) … *

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please take your seats. Shri George Fernandes, I appeal to you to restrict yourself. This is not fair.

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : महोदय, अगर किसी व्यक्ति को किसी से व्यक्तिगत राजनीतिक आक्रोश हो, तो जब तक वह सदन में बहस का विषय न हो, वह व्यक्ति इस डिबेट को अपने व्यक्तिगत आक्रोश या व्यक्तिगत निराशा को व्यक्त करने का अवसर न बनाए। इस ढंग से डिबेट को बर्बाद न करे और इस तरह से अपने अधिकार का दुरूपयोग न करे।


*Not Recorded 



THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM      (SHRIMATI RENUKA CHOWDHURY): I want to appeal that we cannot let parliamentary norms to be denigrated to this level. … (Interruptions) 

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बैठ जाएं। 

…( व्यवधान) 

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will be recorded. 

(Interruptions) …* 

MR. SPEAKER: I am appealing to you to come to the substance of this debate.  

… (Interruptions) 

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह क्या हो रहा है। आप बोलिए।  

…( व्यवधान) 

MR. SPEAKER: These are running commentaries. 

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़  : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE® ®cä cé VÉÉä iÉäãÉ BÉEÉÒ ãÉÚ]{ÉÉ] cÖ<Ç, =ºÉ {É® càÉ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE® ®cä cé* …( व्यवधान)  

MR. SPEAKER: We are discussing the action to be taken against Indian entities and individuals as reported in the Report of the Volcker Committee. आप उस बारे में कहें। 

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : वाल्कर रिपोर्ट पर जो कुछ बोलना चाहते हैं, उसके लिए आपसे मांग की थी कि वहां से जो पेपर्स आए हैं, वे हम लोगों के हाथों में भी आने चाहिए। …( व्यवधान)  

MR. SPEAKER: That chapter is closed. You know everybody knows it. That is over long time back in the morning. 

… (Interruptions) 


*Not Recorded 




श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : =xÉ {Éä{ɺÉÇ BÉEä ÉʤÉxÉÉ ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉÒ SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè? VÉÉä ºÉ¤ÉÚiÉ ´ÉcÉÆ ºÉä +ÉÉA cé, ´Éä <xcÉåxÉä n¤ÉÉBÉE® ®JÉä cÖA cé* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn càÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå ºÉä ªÉc BÉEcÉ VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É ¤ÉÉäãÉå iÉÉä càÉ BÉDªÉÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉåMÉä…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Do not record anything. Why are you shouting? Nothing is being recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: You are in a sense questioning the Speaker’s ruling which you cannot do. Please carry on.

… (Interruptions)














*Not Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we not discuss a serious and important matter?

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You are a Minister. Sit down.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप सब लोग बैठ जाएं।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: I think, all of us, the disturbance has shown, are not serious to discuss this issue. There is a Chair, person in the Chair, whose duty is to see whether you are entitled to raise a Point of Order in a manner which is consistent with the procedure.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह कौन बोल रहा है? I would like to know. Have the courage to stand up. This is not the way. You are ridiculing the Chair. This is the House. Are you proud to be a Member of this House? Take a Point of Order. If it is admissible, I shall certainly deal with it. When I found which is not to be recorded, I have myself already directed ‘not to be recorded’. They are already expunged. Even then, everybody is passing comments and trying to dictate to the Chair. I am requesting Mr. Fernandes, again and again, to please restrict himself to the subject-matter of this Adjournment Motion which deals with it if he has to say anything. Otherwise, these types of scenes will be there.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I want a good and structured debate. I must compliment the hon. Leader of Opposition for raising it at a proper level. Therefore, I want that this level should be maintained. That level was maintained by him. We should all learn how to…

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Sir, I am grateful to you for this comment. But I am not able to understand why a reference to Shrimati Sonia Gandhi’s name should create this kind of disturbance.

MR. SPEAKER: I would tell you why I have not allowed it.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Whatever I am saying is falling on deaf ears. This is very unfortunate. Why I did not allow it is because her name is not mentioned in the Report.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : The Congress Party’s name has been mentioned.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: That fact is unnecessary for him to mention because he has twice mentioned it. He knows it. Now, he says that one name can be mentioned and the other name cannot be mentioned. What is the imputation?

… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : The name of the Congress Party should be there.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Congress Party’s name should be there. You mention the name of Congress. I have no objection to it. Please leave it to me.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please have some respect for the Chair to regulate it. Certainly, I shall see this debate. If anything objectionable is there, you are entitled to take recourse to parliamentary procedure in raising a point of order. But shouting all together is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. It applies to both sides.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: It applies to all sides.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Leader of the House, please control your Members.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, you are in the ruling party. It does not behove of you to do it.

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé BÉEc ®cÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE nÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉå {É® …( व्यवधान) मुझे बोलने का मौका ही नहीं मिलेगा…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think this House wants a debate. I am very sorry to say this. You are only creating problems. Do you not feel disturbed? You raised a point of order. I have allowed it. Your name is not there. It has already been deleted. I am requesting you again to keep quiet. If he does it again, I am there to look after it. To my understanding and knowledge of parliamentary procedure, as I know in my humble capacity for all these years, I am repeating that in spite of the Inquiry, I have allowed this debate because it is an important issue. If anything is to be said or done, naturally the Government can also consider it. Without influencing the Report, this debate may give some good inputs. But what is being done here? Shri Fernandes, you are travelling much beyond the Report unnecessarily and making personal references which could be avoided. I am requesting you to avoid it and come to the subject matter.

… (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): Sir, I would just like to make one small submission for the consideration of the Leader of Opposition and also Shri George Fernandes.

We are considering the Volcker Committee Report about the Indian entities. Here, two entities are concerned. One is Shri Natwar Singh whose name has been mentioned. Another entity is the Congress Party. Repeatedly, Shri George Fernandes is going on saying about two persons. Who are these two persons? The Congress Party consists of so many persons.

SHRI GEORGE FERNANDES : There are two entities.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: Therefore, it is totally unfair on his part to say about two persons. As I said earlier, one entity is the Congress Party. Another entity is Shri Natwar Singh. I would not have any objection if he says about the Congress Party, if he says about Shri Natwar Singh. But if he just picks up one person of the Congress Party, it is most unfair. It speaks of his own personal vendetta against an individual.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have already deleted it.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: The Parliamentary forum cannot be used for that.… (Interruptions) Again, I say that the Parliamentary forum cannot be used for reflecting personal vendetta against an individual.… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY (PURI): What about Shri Ram Naik’s name? All the Members were discussing Shri Ram Naik’s name.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Tripathy, it is very wrong. I do not expect it from you. I warned him saying that he could not refer to anything except what Shri Naik said when he was a Minister. I am, therefore, trying to protect to the best of my ability. As an outsider, what he may have said, that should not be brought in. I did not allow him. Why are you mentioning that? As a Minister, if he had said anything on the floor of the House, you are entitled to refer to that.

That is what I have allowed. Nothing more than that I allowed. I warned him that nothing should be said when he was the Minister. Please do not say that. आप बोलिए without referring to any individual, except Mr. Natwar Singh.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI GEORGE FERNANDES : The Congress Party is an entity. … (Interruptions) But all Congressmen are not involved in this.… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: How do you know? Wherefrom do you get this information?… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: What is this? This is very unfortunate.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: He is a habitual offender. What he is quoting is misquoting which is out of the purview. That is what he is doing.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This debate should not be raised in this fashion.


MR. SPEAKER: This is a very sensitive issue. Please do not refer to names which are not here. They have mentioned about the Congress Party. It is a name of a Party. This is the biggest Party at the moment in this country. They are in power. I am not just saying because they are in power. The Congress Party is a known Party, whatever the mistake may be in the appellation. One can understand the Congress Party. You mention it. But to say that so and so is involved referring to companies have no relevance here. Please do not do that.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record, except what Mr. Fernandes says. If there is anything to be said or done, a Point of Order is to be raised, and that depends on my permission.

(Interruptions) … *

MR. SPEAKER: What is going on?

… (Interruptions)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : <xÉBÉEÉä iÉcãÉBÉEÉ {É® ¤ÉcºÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* +ÉÉ{É <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA ABÉE ÉÊnxÉ iÉªÉ BÉEÉÊ®A, ÉÊVɺɺÉä <ºÉ {É® ¤ÉcºÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEä* …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Chaliha, I have already warned you once. You are repeatedly defying the Chair.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I may tell you that you are in trouble Mr. Goyal. You will be my first target.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय: àÉé ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ <xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä bÉÆ]Ú? MÉãÉÉ £ÉÉÒ JÉ®É¤É cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ cè*

…( व्यवधान)

* Not Recorded.

अध्यक्ष महोदय: 6 ¤ÉVÉä ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉ cé* +É£ÉÉÒ nںɮÉÒ ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔVÉ BÉEä àÉèà¤ÉºÉÇ <ºÉ {É® ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé*

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please maintain silence in the House.

… (Interruptions)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज़ : ªÉc VÉÉä SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, =ºÉä +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä <ºÉ ºiÉ® {É® ®JÉÉ* …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय: àÉéxÉä xÉcÉÓ, <xcÉåxÉä <ºÉ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉä ®JÉÉ cè* àÉÉä¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ãÉéM´ÉäVÉ {ÉÉÊfÃA*



gÉÉÒ VÉÉVÉÇ {ÉExÉÉÇxbÉÒVÉ : क्योंकि यह ऐसा कांड है जिसमें भ्रष्टाचार के भीतर भ्रष्टाचार है।

… ( व्यवधान) और इसका सबूत है … ( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : सबूत तो है लेकिन यहां तो कोई जज नहीं है। जज साहब तो वहां बैठे हैं।

… ( व्यवधान)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज : सदन में तो आप ही हैं … ( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : हमारी बात कोई सुनता नहीं है। आप बोलिए।

… ( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: There is too much noise in the House. Those who cannot go outside, please restrain yourselves.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Ram Kripal Yadav, you are also in my list, do not worry. Mr. Jain, Mr. Manvendra Singh, Mr. Aaron Rashid, Mr. Thummar and also yourself. Any day, action may be taken against you and Mr. Pradhan is joining it

… (Interruptions)

श्री जार्ज फर्नान्डीज : मेरा आग्रह है कि इस मामले में जिन लोगों के नाम आए हैं या आने वाले हैं, उन सबके ऊपर कार्रवाई होना अत्यावश्यक है। हमारा आपसे आग्रह है कि किसी भी मामले पर तेजी से और जितनी जल्दी से कार्रवाई की जाती रही है यहां भी उतनी ही तेजी से कार्रवाई हो जानी चाहिए। इसमें जो भी अपराधी बनकर, अपना नाम छिपाकर या बताकर सामने आते हैं, इन सब लोगों पर कानूनी कार्रवाई अविलम्ब होनी चाहिए। मेरा यह आपसे आग्रह है और इससे ज्यादा कुछ नहीं कहना चाहता हूं।

DR. SUJAN CHAKRABORTY (JADAVPUR): Mr. Speaker, Sir, can he take 50 minutes to speak these three sentences? … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He alone has not taken 50 minutes.

… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : VÉÉä cÉä MɪÉÉ =ºÉä UÉä½ nÉÒÉÊVÉA*

… ( BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

श्री मोहन सिंह : अध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं और मेरी पार्टी इस कार्य स्थगन प्रस्ताव के विरोध में है लेकिन कार्य स्थगन प्रस्ताव के बहाने जो भावनाएं व्यक्त की गई हैं, हमारी उन भावनओं के साथ पूरी सहमति है। यह हमारी परेशानी है चूंकि कांग्रेस का लंबा इतिहास रहा है इसलिए अच्छी परंपरा और बुरी परंपरा दोनों के उदाहरण हम कांग्रेस पार्टी में ही ढूंढ़ते हैं। जब वर्ष १९५१ में अंतरिम संसद थी तो २४ सितंबर, १९५१ को इस देश के प्रधानमंत्री श्री जवाहर लाल नेहरू जी ने अपनी ही पार्टी के संसद सदस्य के खिलाफ संसद की सदस्यता समाप्त करने का प्रस्ताव रखा था। श्री यचदि मुदगल सदन की सदस्यता से इसलिए हटा दिए गए क्योंकि उनके ऊपर आरोप था कि अपनी कार्रवाई को चलाने के लिए बम्बई के सर्राफा बाजार से एक हजार रुपए से लेकर पांच हजार रुपए उन्हें मिलते थे। यानी इस संस्था और कांग्रेस पार्टी के जमाने का ऐसा इतिहास था कि यदि ५ हजार रुपये की रिश्वत के मामले का आरोप लग जाये, तो उस आरोप की जांच के लिये एक संसदीय कमेटी बनाकर भारत के सार्वजनिक जीवन,जिनका मानदंड स्थापित करने के लिये कांगेस पार्टी ने अपने ही सदस्यों का इस सदन से निष्कासन कर दिया। यह भी एक उदाहरण कांग्रेस पार्टी का रहा है लेकिन दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण स्थिति यह है कि वोल्कर समति की जो रिपोर्ट आई है, माननीय संसदीय कार्य मंत्री के बयान को मैं दुरुस्त करना चाहता हूं – कि हम वोल्कर समति की रिपोर्ट पर बहस नहीं कर रहे हैं। वोल्कर समति की रिपोर्ट में जिन व्यक्तियों या संस्थाओं के नाम आये हैं, उनके विरुद्ध कार्यवाही करने की सरकार की जो विफलता है, हम उस पर चर्चा कर रहे हैं। जब हम इस विषय पर आते हैं तो हमें मानना है कि वोल्कर समति की रिपोर्ट आने के बाद पहली बार उस कमेटी ने ६३० पृष्ठों की अपनी आख्या में २४०० कम्पनियों के नाम दिये हैं और उनमें दो कम्पनियां भारत की हैं। एक कांग्रेस पार्टी और दूसरा नटवर सिंह। मुझे इस बात का आश्चर्य है कि कांग्रेस पार्टी को एक बाहर की कम्पनी के रूप में माना जाता है और इस कम्पनी पर इलज़ाम लगे हैं। अध्यक्ष महोदय, हम यह कहना चाहते हैं कि इस रिपोर्ट के आने के बाद काग्रेस पार्टी के पर जो इल्ज़ाम लगा , कांग्रेस पार्टी को उस इल्जाम से मुक्त होने की शुरुआत करनी चाहिये थी और इस देश के विदेश मंत्री को अपने पद से त्याग-पत्र दे देना चाहिये था। यदि उन्होंने अपने पद से त्याग-पत्र नहीं दिया था तो भारत के प्रधान मंत्री को, जिनका मानदंड स्थिर रखना है – उन्हें मंत्रिमंडल से निकाल बाहर करना चाहिये था। लेकिन इस काम को न कांग्रेस पार्टी ने किया, न इस सरकार ने ही किया। हमें इस बात पर अफसोस है, इसलिये हमें चिन्ता है।

अध्यक्ष महोदय, दूसरी बात यह है कि जो रिपोर्ट आई है, उसके बारे में कांग्रेस पार्टी ने कहा है कि वह मानहानि का दावा करेगी। उसके बाद यह खबर आई कि उन्होंने चिट्ठी भी लिखी है जिसमें कहा कि वोल्कर समति ने उन सब को, जिनके नामों का जिक्र किया गया है, उनको अपनी सफाई देने का अवसर दिया है, लेकिन हम लोगों को नहीं दिया है। यह बात समझ में आती है कि यह अवसर कांग्रेस पार्टी को नहीं दिया लेकिन जिनको सफाई देने का अवसर दिया, उन पर रिपोर्ट की आख्या है, उसमें कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया गया है। इस पर भी विचार व्यक्त कर दिया। उनको इस बात का बाद में अफसोस हुआ कि नटवर सिंह नाम का व्यक्ति भारत का विदेश मंत्री है। यह कहा गया कि हमारी उनसे कोई निजी दुश्मनी या द्वेष नहीं है इसलिये उनका नाम रिपोर्ट में आया। हमें जो दस्तावेज बरामद हुये, ईराक तेल बेचने वाली कम्पनी के दस्तावेज के आधार पर हमें इन नामों को दिखाया गया। हम कहना चाहते हैं कि इस देश के सार्वजनिक मानदंडों को स्थापित करने के लिये कांग्रेस पार्टी को त्वरित कार्यवाही करनी चाहिये। कांग्रेस पार्टी और इस सरकार ने कमीशन बना दिया जिसे हम न्यायिक कमीशन कह सकते हैं। लेकिन इस कमीशन को नियुक्त करने के लिये कमीशन ऑफ इंक्वायरी एक्ट बना हुआ है। उसकी घोषणा सदन के भीतर होती, उसकी रिपोर्ट सदन में आती लेकिन सरकार ने एक कमीशन ही बना दिया। इसलिये हम मांग करेंगे कि उस कमीशन की नियुक्ति कमीशन ऑफ इंक्वायरी एक्ट के तहत होनी चाहिये जिसकी रिपोर्ट संसद में प्रस्तुत हो ताकि सदन उस पर पूरी तरह से बहस कर सके।

अध्यक्ष महोदय, तीसरी बात यह है कि जो इलज़ाम लगे हैं, वे क्या हैं? वोल्कर समति कहती है कि ये इलजाम नहीं हैं। उसकी रिपोर्ट में कहा गया कि हमने किसी के बारे में आरोप पत्र दाखिल नहीं किया है, इसलिये जो तथ्य प्रकट किये गये हैं, उन तथ्यों में क्या बातें सामने आई हैं। १३वीं और १४वीं किश्त में जो तेल का उठान हुआ उसमें कांग्रेस पार्टी के लिये २-२ मीटि्रक टन तेल का उठान हुआ। लेकिन इस ४ मीटि्रक टन टेल में कांग्रेस पार्टी ने उसका उठान किया या कांग्रेस पार्टी की ओर से किसी व्यक्ति या संस्था ने जिसका नाम स्विस कम्पनी मैसफील्ड ए.जी. कम्पनी है, उसने एक मीटि्रक टन बैरल तेल का उठान किया।

श्री नटवर सिंह जी को २.२ बलियन बैरल तेल दोबारा आवंटित हुआ और उन्हें आवंटित उस तेल में से १.९ बलियन बैरल का उठान हुआ। इसके बारे में वह कमेटी कहती है कि नटवरसिंह के नाम से जिस तेल का उठान हुआ, उस पर उन्हें ३२ करोड़ रुपये से अधिक का लाभ हुआ। ऐसा उस कमेटी के तथ्यों में प्रकट किया गया है। इसकी सफाई इस देश की जनता के सामने होनी चाहिए। कांग्रेस पार्टी में जो इस देश के विदेश मंत्री हैं, उस विदेश मंत्री के पुत्र के एक दोस्त की कम्पनी के ऊपर वित्त मंत्रालय की ओर से छापा डाला गया। हम इस बात को स्वीकार कर सकते हैं कि भारत सरकार को वोल्कर कमेटी से संबंधित तथ्य मिल गये हैं। लेकिन उन्हें इस सदन के सामने रखना इसलिए आवश्यक नहीं है, क्योंकि इस पर एक न्यायिक कमेटी, फैक्ट फाइंडिंग कमेटी श्री दयाल की अध्यक्षता में बन गई है, इसलिए उन्हें प्रस्तुत नहीं किया जा सकता। लेकिन डी.आई.आर. ने जो जगत सिंह के मित्र की कम्पनी के ऊपर छापा डाला था, उसके जरिये कुछ तथ्य भारत सरकार के वित्त मंत्रालय को मिले होंगे। उन तथ्यों को इस सदन के सामने रखने में भारत सरकार और वित्त मंत्रालय को क्या परेशानी है। उन तथ्यों को इस सदन के सामने रखा जाना चाहिए।

दूसरी बात हम कहना चाहते हैं कि जो स्विटजरलैंड की मेसफील्ड है, उस कम्पनी से कांग्रेस पार्टी के और नटवरसिंह जी के क्या रिश्ते हैं, इसकी सफाई बहस के अंत में हो तथा भारत सरकार इस सदन के सामने इन दोनों तथ्यों को उजागर करे। वोल्कर ने पूरी दुनिया के सामने भारत के नेताओं के बारे में इस बात को बतलाया है कि भारत सरकार ने और भारत की कतिपय पार्टियों ने श्री सद्दाम हुसैन को परेशानी के समय में मदद की और उस परेशानी के समय मदद के एवज में कुछ फीस वसूली, जिस फीस को वह घूस का नाम देने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं। इस तरह से किसी पार्टी या सरकार का कोई वरिष्ठ मंत्री अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर घूस लेने और देने में आरोपित किया जाए, इससे ज्यादा शर्म की बात हमारे देश के सार्वजनिक जीवन के लिए कुछ नहीं हो सकती। इसलिए कांग्रेस पार्टी को और इस सरकार को अपनी सफाई देनी चाहिए, ताकि दूध का दूध और पानी का पानी इस देश के सामने आये, इसके बारे में सरकार को पूरी कोशिश करनी चाहिए।

तीसरी बात हम कहना चाहते हैं कि इल्जाम आने के बाद या ये तथ्य आने के बाद भारत के विदेश मंत्री ने इस देश के अंदर जो वक्तव्य दिये, मैं ऐसा समझता हूं कि एक जिम्मेदार विदेश मंत्री की हैसियत से उनके वे बयान जिम्मेदाराना नहीं थे। उन वक्तव्यों से भारत के एक मित्र देश के साथ रिश्तों में खटास पैदा होने की स्थिति उत्पन्न हो गई। इसलिए प्रधान मंत्री जी ने अपनी नाक बचाने के लिए कुछ ऐसा किया कि उन्हें विदेश मंत्रालय से हटा लिया। वे वक्तव्य, जो आरोप लगने के बाद और उन्हें विदेश मंत्रालय से हटाने के बीच में भारत के विदेश मंत्री ने दिये, उसकी सफाई भारत सरकार को आज की तारीख में देनी चाहिए। ईरान के मामले में भारत सरकार की वैदेशिक कूटनीति क्या होगी, इसके बारे में परिवर्तन की एक घोषणा विदेश मंत्री की हैसियत से की गई है। इसके बारे में आज सरकार क्या कहती है और क्या सोचती है, इस बारे में भी देश के सामने सफाई आनी चाहिए। इसी के साथ हम कहना चाहते हैं कि बहुत सारी चीजों पर उनकी ओर से कहा गया कि यह एक देश की साम्राज्यवादी मनोवृत्ति के लोगों ने किया है, चूंकि उस देश का सद्दाम हुसैन के ऊपर आक्रमण को लेकर हमने सक्रिय ढंग से प्रतिवाद किया था, इसलिए उसने हमें फंसाने की कोशिश की है। यदि उनकी यह बात सही है तो इसका भी खुलासा होना चाहिए। क्योंकि हम इस देश के बाहर जाकर दुनिया के बीच में किसी महान देश के कृपापात्र होने की कोशिश करते हैं और कृपापात्र होने के लिए इस देश के भीतर देश के प्रधान मंत्री और और इस देश की सरकार अपनी पीठ ठोकती है और उसके साथ यह भी कहा जाता है कि यह उस तरह की साम्राज्यवादी शक्तियों का हमारे देश के नेतृत्व को बदनाम करने का एक षडयंत्र है, इन दोनों बातों के बीच में जो विरोधाभास है, उसकी भी सफाई इस सदन के भीतर आनी चाहिए।

इन्हीं शब्दों के साथ हम इस कार्यस्थगन प्रस्ताव का तो विरोध करते हैं, लेकिन इसके पीछे जो मंशा और भावना है, उस मंशा और भावना का समर्थन करते हुए हम अपनी बात को समाप्त करते हैं।


ªÉÚ.AxÉ. की वोल्कर कमेटी रिपोर्ट में टेबल ३ पर फेज १०,११,१२ और १३ में कांग्रेस और नटवर सिंह दोनों की चर्चा की गई है। रिपोर्ट में इसके अलावा जो नॉन कॉन्ट्रैक्चुअल बैनफशियरीज़ हैं, उनके नाम भी उल्लिखित हैं। नटवर सिंह और कांग्रेस पार्टी को बताना चाहिए कि कांग्रेस पार्टी की तरफ से किसने पैसा लिया है क्योंकि कांग्रेस पार्टी का नाम आया है। सरकार की तरफ से संसदीय कार्य मंत्री अभी सदन में बहस कर रहे थे। वे कह रहे थे कि कांग्रेस पार्टी का नाम किसने लिया, कांग्रेस पार्टी का नाम कैसे आ गया। कांग्रेस पार्टी के नाम ४ मलियन बैरल आइल कैसे अलाट हुआ, २ मलियन बैरल कांग्रेस पार्टी से किसने उठाया, इस बारे में सरकार की तरफ से कोई भी सफाई इस सदन में नहीं दी गई। इससे साबित होता है कि जरूर ४ मलियन बैरल कांग्रेस पार्टी के नाम से अलाट हुआ है, नटवर सिंह के नाम से ४ मलियन बैरल अलाट हुआ है। स्विस कंपनी का नाम जो अभी आ रहा है, वह कौन सी है? इस कंपनी का नाम हैमडैन है जो इंडियन कंपनी है, जिस पर रेड भी हुई है और जिसके संबंध नटवर सिंह के पुत्र के साथ हैं – ऐसी बातें अखबारों में आ रही हैं। जो स्विस कंपनी मेसफील्ड एजी है, उसके साथ हैमडैन का संपर्क है। इस बारे में भी सरकार की तरफ से सदन में कुछ नहीं कहा गया।


“After Natwar, who?” Seven more Congressmen are there. Who are they?

MR. SPEAKER: Do not name them.

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : I am not taking anybody’s name. They are supporting very much Tehelka.


SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : I am just referring to Tehelka. Yes, what is there? I am not referring to anybody’s name. A Chief Minister of a Northern State is known very much close to 10 Janpath. That is there in Tehelka. There is a Union Minister of State (Independent Charge). Who is he? Why has he not resigned? He has got close relations with 10 Janpath. His name is there in Tehelka. So, the Ruling Party and the Government should say who is this Minister of State (Independent Charge) whose name is there? There is one AICC Secretary. Who is he? … (Interruptions) You are trusting Tehelka. You are disturbing. I am referring to Tehelka. I am not referring to anybody’s name. It is there in Tehelka.

MR. SPEAKER: You see, you cannot authenticate that. Can you authenticate it? It is not permissible to reproduce any statement here.

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : I am not telling anybody’s name. But they are demanding.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not the way.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please sit down. Why do you not sit down?

This is not fair.

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY: There is a high profile Member of Rajya Sabha who is considered to be close to 10 Janpath. Sir, I am not naming anybody.

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : He is not naming anybody.

MR. SPEAKER: He cannot authenticate himself about the truth of the allegation. Can you authenticate?

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : This is with reference to the Volcker Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Can you authenticate?

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : They have not tabled the Report. Let them deny.

16.00 hrs.

Let them deny that this is not there in the report.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Can you authenticate that?

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : Sir, we do not have the report.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Can you authenticate it?

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : Yes, that is there in Tehalka.… weekly (Interruptions) I can authenticate that this is published in Tehalka, .… (Interruptions) dt. 19.11.2005

MR. SPEAKER: Not report. What he is reading is an allegation made in some context.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : They are demanding Tehalka. That is why I am referring Tehalka.… (Interruptions) I do not have to say anything of Tehalka; something which has been reported in the newspaper, that I am referring. .… (Interruptions) This section of the people are demanding Tehalka.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This is not fair.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You are reading from a newspaper which you cannot authenticate yourself.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : They have referred to so many newspapers but nobody has objected. … (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : ठीक है, आप बोलिए।

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : I have not completed. … (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बोलिए।

…( व्यवधान)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : A former Union Minister and who is now currently PCC President of a Northern State, who is he?… (Interruptions) Let them say. A former General Secretary of the Rajasthan Youth Cougress, let him say if Congress people are not involved.… (Interruptions) Not only Shri Natwar Singh is involved other people are also there.… (Interruptions) It has also reported in all sections of the national papers, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the President, has written a letter to Mr. Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq.… (Interruptions) Please listen.… (Interruptions) You all have to listen to me.… (Interruptions) Yes, she has written a letter. What was the content of that letter she should make it public.… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI TEJASWINI SEERAMESH (KANAKAPURA): You cannot take all the names.… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : She has written a letter.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please sit down.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I ask you to sit down.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : The Government have not denied this .… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Rashid, that is not fair.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: He is mentioning about the letter written. Let me see what you say.

… (Interruptions)

कुँवर मानवेन्द्र सिंह : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå £ÉÉÒ <xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEãÉ´ÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ*…( व्यवधान)

श्री ब्रज किशोर त्रिपाठी : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä àÉä®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÖxÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA ÉÊBÉE àÉé BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ®Éä{É ãÉMÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ* …( BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. SPEAKER: I will have to ask you to leave the House.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : Mr. Natwar Singh, the former External Minister has himself told that he has got a letter from Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the President of Congress Party and met Saddam Hussein .… (Interruptions) This House is entitled to know about it.… (Interruptions) The Congress name is there in the Volcker Committee Report.… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI TEJASWINI SEERAMESH : What is the letter?… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : That is for you to tell us; Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to tell us.… (Interruptions) The nation is entitled to know as to what are the contents in the letter.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: If somebody has written as the President of the Party, are you entitled to know? What is all this?

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is over.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : How can I know the content of the letter?… (Interruptions) श्रीमती सोनिया गांधी जी ने क्या लेटर दिया, इसके बारे में देशवासी जानना चाहते हैं। इसके बारे में उचित जानकारी सरकार की तरफ से दी जानी चाहिए।

MR. SPEAKER: You had five minutes; you have taken eight minutes.

… (Interruptions)

श्री ब्रज किशोर त्रिपाठी : <ºÉ {É® ºÉÉÒ¤ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ<Ç ºÉä <xBÉD´ÉɪɮÉÒ BÉE®ÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* VÉÉä BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä ÉÊxɪÉÖBÉDiÉ cÖ+ÉÉ cè =ºÉBÉEÉ AÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ BÉEÉèxÉ ãÉäMÉÉ? +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä BÉEcxÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ cè, AÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ ãÉäxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* VÉÉä BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç ãÉÉÒMÉãÉ AxÉ]ÉÒ]ÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cè* nä¶É BÉEä ¤ÉÉc® VÉÉä AÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ ãÉåMÉä, ´Éc ÉÊBÉEºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ ÉÊãÉA VÉÉAÆMÉä* CBI is the only agency through which they can take the evidence from other countries. सीबीआई द्वारा इन्क्वायरी कराने से कांग्रेस के बारे में, भ्रष्टाचार के बारे में देशवासियों को पता चल जाएगा, इसलिए कांग्रेस नहीं चाहती कि सीबीआई इन्क्वायरी करे। बोफोर्स के बाद यह दूसरा कांड है। सारे देशवासियों को इसके बारे में मालूम है। कांग्रेस ने भ्रष्टाचार को न केवल नेशनलाइज़ किया है, बल्कि अब इंटरनेशनलाईज कर दिया है। उनकी सौ साल की पार्टी है। वह नकली कांग्रेस है, असली कांग्रेस नहीं है। नकली कांग्रेस पार्टी ने सारे देश के सम्मान को मिट्टी में मिला दिया है। आज आयल फार फूड प्रोग्राम में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है। …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: If you continue to do like this, I will ask you to get out.

… (Interruptions)

श्री ब्रज किशोर त्रिपाठी <ºÉºÉä nä¶É BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ ºÉààÉÉxÉ ®cäMÉÉ* ºÉÉ®ä |ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ BÉDªÉÉ BÉEcåMÉä? +ÉɪÉãÉ {ÉEÉ® {ÉÚEb |ÉÉäOÉÉàÉ àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ, °ôÉËãÉMÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ §É­]ÉSÉÉ® BÉE® ®cÉÒ cè* ªÉc MÉÆ£ÉÉÒ® àÉÉàÉãÉÉ cè* <ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ºÉÉÒ¤ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ<Ç ºÉä <xBÉD´ÉɪɮÉÒ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA*

MR. SPEAKER: Show it to me. You have taken double of your time.

Now, Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav.





àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc ~ÉÒBÉE cè ÉÊBÉE ´ÉÉäãÉBÉE® ºÉÉÊàÉÉÊiÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉEÉÒ ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉcÖiÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉ ®cÉÒ cè* ªÉc ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç ´É­ÉÇ 2001 BÉEÉÒ cè VÉ¤É {ÉÚEb {ÉEÉì® +ÉÉìªÉãÉ ]ÅÉÆVÉèBÉD¶ÉxÉ |ÉÉäOÉÉàÉ ¶ÉÖ°ô cÖ+ÉÉ* <ºÉàÉå +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEÉä 69.4 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉÒ bÉìãÉ® BÉEÉ ¶ÉÖr àÉÖxÉÉ{ÉEÉ cÖ+ÉÉ* <ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç àÉå +ÉɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ xÉä <®ÉBÉE BÉEÉä àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA 38.6 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉìãÉ® JÉSÉÇ ÉÊBÉEA* SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEàÉ cè <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé <ºÉ JÉSÉÇ BÉEä ÉʴɺiÉÉ® àÉå xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉ-ÉÊBÉEºÉ àÉn {É® ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ-ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ JÉSÉÇ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ* <ºÉ ºÉÉ®ä BÉEÉàÉ BÉEÉ ºÉÆSÉÉãÉxÉ BÉEÉè{ÉEÉÒ +ÉxxÉÉxÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ, nÉäxÉÉå xÉä º´ÉiÉ& cÉÒ BÉE® ÉÊãɪÉÉ* 38.6 ÉÊàÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉÒ bÉãÉ® <®ÉBÉE àÉå àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ cäiÉÖ JÉSÉÇ ÉÊBÉEA MÉA +ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå ºÉä 18 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉìãÉ®, +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEä ´ÉiÉÇàÉÉxÉ ®É­]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ BÉEä º´ÉMÉÉﻃ ÉÊ{ÉiÉÉ, VÉÉìVÉÇ ¤ÉÖ¶É- |ÉlÉàÉ BÉEä ºÉàÉªÉ <®ÉBÉE ºÉä VÉÉä ªÉÖr cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉnãÉä àÉå ãÉä ÉÊãÉA MÉA* iÉäãÉ ÉÊxɪÉÉÇiÉ {É® 5.3 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉìãÉ® JÉSÉÇ ÉÊBÉEA, ´Éä ãÉä ÉÊãÉA* cÉÊlɪÉÉ® ÉÊxÉ®ÉÒFÉhÉ {É® VÉÉä JÉSÉÇ cÖ+ÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA 0.5 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉìãÉ® ÉÊãÉA MÉA* 9.35 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉìãÉ® bè´ÉãÉ{ÉàÉå] {ÉEÆb弃 {ÉEÉì® <Ç®ÉBÉE ºÉä, càÉãÉÉ BÉE®xÉä ºÉä {ÉcãÉä cb{É ÉÊãÉA* <xÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ SÉÉÒVÉÉå BÉEä ÉʵÉEªÉÉx´ÉªÉxÉ +ÉÉè® |ɶÉɺÉÉÊxÉBÉE JÉSÉÉç BÉEÉÒ ´ÉºÉÚãÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ <®ÉBÉE àÉå cÉÒ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç +ÉÉè® 1.4 ÉʤÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉãÉ® <ºÉ àÉn àÉå ÉÊãÉA MÉA* ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ xÉä £ÉÉÒ +É{ÉxÉÉ ºÉÉ®É JÉSÉÇ <®ÉBÉEÉÒ ¤ÉSSÉÉå BÉEä nÚvÉ-n´ÉÉ<Ç BÉEä ÉÊcººÉä ºÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ* =xÉBÉEÉ 18 àÉcÉÒxÉä BÉEÉ ´ÉäiÉxÉ 30 ÉÊàÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉãÉ® cÖ+ÉÉ* <ºÉ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç iÉèªÉÉ® cÖ<Ç cè, =ºÉ cäiÉÖ ´ÉäiÉxÉ £ÉÉÒ 30 ÉÊàÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ bÉãÉ® ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ BÉEä àÉn ºÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ* ªÉä ºÉ¤É ¤ÉÉiÉå ®{É] àÉå ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ uÉ®É cÉÒ nVÉÇ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç cé* <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA ´ÉÉäãªÉÚàÉ ABÉE +ÉÉè® nÉä näJÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* BÉDªÉÉ ªÉc <®ÉBÉE àÉå +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEÉÒ JÉÖãÉÉÒ ãÉÚ] xÉcÉÓ cè? क्या यू.एस., यू.के. के जरिए या यू.एस. के कार्पोरेशन के जरिए ऑयल फोर फूड कार्यक्रम के तहत ईराक को लूटा गया है, क्योंकि यह सारा काम अमेरिका के इशारे पर हो रहा है। इसलिए मैं कहता हूं कि जिस आधार पर, जिन तथ्यों पर यह रिपोर्ट बनाई गई, वह शक के घेरे में है, उसकी विश्वसनीयता आज भी शक के घेरे में है। वोल्कर रिपोर्ट अमेरिका द्वारा सोची हुई कूटनीति के तहत एक राजनीतिक चाल भी हो सकती है, इसलिए इसकी गहन जांच और गहन छानबीन करने की आवश्यकता है, मैं ऐसा महसूस करता हूं, क्योंकि जो देश ईराक को सपोर्ट करेगा उसकी इमेज को खराब करने के लिए एक बड़ी चाल भी हो सकती है, यह जांच का विषय है। जहां भी भ्रष्टाचार हो, गंगोत्री से भ्रष्टाचार नीचे की छोटी नदियों में जाता है, इसलिए गंगोत्री को साफ रखना चाहिए। मैं सिद्धांतत: इस पक्ष में हूं, लेकिन वोल्कर रिपोर्ट को रशिया, साउथ अफ्रीका और अन्य देशों ने रिजेक्ट कर दिया, फ्रांस ने भी रिजेक्ट कर दिया और आप इसे इतनी अहमियत दे रहे हैं। मल्होत्रा जी, वर्ष २००१ में एनडीए का शासन था। आप लोग बड़ी-बड़ी कम्पनियों को लेकर, जैसे एस.टी.सी. आदि का इसमें इन्वाल्वमेंट है, इस रिपोर्ट में उसका भी इन्वाल्वमेंट है। सन् २००१ में एनडीए सरकार थी, उसकी पूरी लिस्ट है। केवल श्री राम नाईक का सवाल नहीं है, किन लोगों ने वज़िट किया है, मैं यह बताना चाहता हूं। The following leaders in the NDA regime visited Iraq with or without delegation. विदाउट और डेलीगेशन के साथ भी, १९९९-२००० में जुलाई २७ से २९ तक श्री वी.के. राम मूर्ति, मनिस्टर ऑफ पैट्रोलियम एंड नेचुरल गैस, सन् २००१ में सितम्बर, २२ से २५ तक श्री अजित कुमार पांजा,…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER : No allegation has been made so far. I am waiting for that.

…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : अगर कोई आरोप होगा, तो हम उसे निकाल देंगे।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : इ®ÉBÉE àÉå BÉDªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ? …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : अभी खाली नाम लिया है।

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : जिस समय ऑयल फोर फूड कार्यक्रम चल रहा था, उस समय आप लोग बड़े-बड़े डेलीगेशन लेकर गए। सन् २००२ में श्री अजित कुमार पांजा, विदेश राज्य मंत्री ईराक गए।…( व्यवधान)

मोहम्मद सलीम : ºÉqÉàÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ {ÉÉäº]® ãÉMÉÉA lÉä*…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER : It only shows our close relations with Iraq.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV: Between August 31 – September 2 in 2001 a 75-member goodwill delegation headed by the Deputy Chairperson, Rajya Sabha Dr. Najma Heptulla visited Iraq. वे कांग्रेस के थे, आपने उन्हें केबिनेट का पोस्ट क्यों दिया था, उन्हें आप क्यों ले आए? …( व्यवधान)

मोहम्मद सलीम : इ®ÉBÉE àÉå ÉÊãÉJÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ – ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉ=ÆÉʺÉãÉ +ÉÉì{ÉE <ÆÉÊbªÉxÉ {ÉÉÉÌãɪÉÉàÉå]*…( व्यवधान)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : <iÉxÉÉ ºÉàÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ cé, xÉcÉÓ iÉÉä càÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä {ÉEÉä]Éä BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ÉÊnJÉÉiÉä*…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER : No photo is necessary.

…( व्यवधान)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ xÉäºÉäÉʺÉ]ÉÒ xÉcÉÓ nä ®cä cé*…( व्यवधान) जब भी स्थगन प्रस्ताव पेश हुआ है तो पार्टी की संख्या के अनुसार समय दिया जाता है।

MR. SPEAKER : I will decide about your time. He is only upsetting you.

… (Interruptions)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : càÉÉ®ÉÒ VÉÉä º]ÅålÉ cè =ºÉBÉEä +ÉxÉÖºÉÉ® càÉå ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*…( व्यवधान) जुलाई ६ और ७, २००२, श्री राम नाईक जी, जनवरी २० से २२, २००२, Shri Digvijay Singh, Minister of State for Railways visited Iraq. ये वहां कोई हनीमून मनाने गए थे?…( व्यवधान) क्या कारण था?…( व्यवधान) 6-7 July, 2002 Shri Ram Naik, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas visited Iraq heading a 53-member Indian delegation.

What could be the reason of such a large number of visits by party functionaries in the Government, far beyond the normal diplomatic interactions? Shri Ram Naik took a 53-member business delegation. Shri Ram Naik had a two-hour meeting with Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq besides meeting Shri Taha Yassain Ramadhan, Vice-President; Mr. Hikmat Al Azzawi, Deputy Prime Minister; and Dr. Saddoun Hammadi, Speaker of the National Assembly of Iraq.

MR. SPEAKER: Give only the designation.

SHRI DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV : Shri Ram Naik also had meetings with the Ministers of Oil, Trade, Industry and Minerals, Health, Electricity, Transport and Communications, wherein Oil for Food Programme was discussed in detail. … (Interruptions) मैं संबंध बता देता हूं।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: He has not spoken anything unparliamentary. He is speaking within his allotted time. He is using his time. Why are you interrupting?

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉ ®cä lÉä, iÉ¤É càÉxÉä ABÉE ¶É¤n xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÉäãÉÉ lÉÉ* ªÉÉÊn càÉ £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä {É® ]ÉäBÉExÉä ãÉMÉåMÉä iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É ABÉE ¶É¤n £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÉäãÉ {ÉÉAÆMÉä*…( व्यवधान) मैं संबंध बता देता हूं। अध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं आपकी परमीशन से बताना चाहता हूं…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : ªÉc {É®àÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ càÉBÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè*

…( BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV : It is interesting to note that Shri Ram Naik specifically promoted business interests of the companies accompanied in the delegation, namely, Mohan Exports, L.K. Trading Overseas. … (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय, इसमें नाम दिए गए हैं। आप वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट को देख लीजिए, उसमें नाम दिए गए हैं। इन्होंने सरचार्ज लिया है।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : हां, वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट में नाम है।

…( व्यवधान)

SHRI DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV : There were also representatives of Aganta Pharma, Vadodara Alembic, Unique Pharmaceuticals, who all have been named by Mr. Paul Volcker’s Report of having paid surcharge to the Saddam Hussein’s Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, your time is over.

… (Interruptions)

श्री अनंत गंगाराम गीते (रत्नागरि) : +ÉÉ{É ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉä BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA*…( व्यवधान)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : càÉ iÉÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉä BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE®åMÉä cÉÒ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉ BÉDªÉÉå SÉÖ{É lÉä?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is over.

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, (Not recorded) एम्बेसडर आफ इण्डिया ने २८ जनवरी २००४ को विदेश मंत्रालय को पत्र लिखा था और इस पर आला अधिकारियों ने टिप्पणी की है। इसमें साफ-साफ उन्होंने अपने पत्र में कहा है …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: No, you have not given any notice.

… (Interruptions)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : <xcÉåxÉä ºÉàÉÉSÉÉ® àÉå {ÉfÃÉ* VÉÆMÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉãÉàÉÉbÉ BÉEä +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ +ÉxÉÖ´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ |ÉÉÊiÉ £ÉÉÒ ºÉÆãÉMxÉ BÉEÉÒ* <xÉ nÉäxÉÉå +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå BÉEÉÒ cäbãÉÉ<xÉ àÉå lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ®É­]Å{ÉÉÊiɪÉÉå, ®ÉVÉxÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ, {ÉjÉBÉEÉ®Éå +ÉÉè® ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE nãÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉqÉàÉ cÖºÉèxÉ xÉä BÉE<Ç ãÉÉJÉ ¤Éè®ãÉ µÉEÚb +ÉɪÉãÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ* =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉ BÉDªÉÉ BÉE® ®cä lÉä? 28 VÉxÉ´É®ÉÒ, 2004 BÉEÉä AxÉbÉÒA BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® lÉÉÒ* =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ ªÉ¶É´ÉxiÉ ÉʺÉxcÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶É àÉÆjÉÉÒ lÉä* =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä SÉÖ{{ÉÉÒ BÉDªÉÉå ãÉMÉɪÉÉÒ cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ? =ºÉBÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ BÉEÉ®hÉ lÉÉ? =ºÉBÉEä {ÉÉÒUä BÉDªÉÉ ®cºªÉ lÉÉ? ´Éc {ÉjÉ ¤ÉMÉnÉn ºÉä +ÉɪÉÉ lÉÉ* * भारत के राजदूत ने वह पत्र लिखा विदेश सचिव, भारत सरकार को, उस समय भारत सरकार में आप लोग ही बैठे थे। अब आप लोग इस मामले में अनभिज्ञता जाहिर करते हैं। अनभिज्ञता जाहिर करके आप अपनी रिस्पॉन्सिबिलटी से मुकर नहीं सकते हैं। चालाकी से देश नहीं चलता है। देश हर बात को संजिदगी से लेता है। वह देख रहा है कि कौन क्या कर रहा है?…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: That will not be recorded.

(Interruptions) … *


àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c §É­]ÉSÉÉ® =xàÉÚãÉxÉ {É® +É{ÉxÉÉÒ {ÉÉnÇÉ̶ÉiÉÉ ÉÊnJÉÉ ®cÉ cè, àÉéxÉä {ÉcãÉä <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ¶ÉÉÒ¶Éä BÉEä PÉ® àÉå àÉiÉ ¤ÉèÉÊ~A* +ÉÉ{É ºÉ´ÉÉæSSÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉE®å, <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ {É® +ÉÉVÉ cÉÒ ¤ÉcºÉ cÉä +ÉÉè® ªÉc iÉªÉ cÉä VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE 10-15 ´É­ÉÉç àÉå nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÆn® ªÉÉ ¤ÉÉc® VÉÉä ]éb® cÖA, =xÉBÉEÉÒ {ÉÉnÇÉ̶ÉiÉÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ ÉʤÉ~ɪÉÉ VÉÉA* càÉ BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE®iÉä cé, SÉÉcä <ÆbÉÒ{Éébå] VÉÉÆSÉ +ÉɪÉÉäMÉ ÉʤÉ~ÉAÆ, SÉÉcä

* Not Recorded.

कौन्टैक्स्ट या नान-कौन्टैक्स्ट में बैनीफिट लिया गया हो। इससे दूध का दूध और पानी का पानी हो जाएगा।…( व्यवधान)

श्री सत्येन्द्र दूबे, नेशनल हाईवेज़ अधिकारी की हत्या कैसे हुई? उस समय कौन्ट्रैक्टर कौन था? वे देश की सड़क बनाने का काम कर रहे थे। एक पार्टी के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष को मीडिया में रिश्वत लेते हुए दिखाया गया।…( व्यवधान) आज इस तरह की परिस्थिति कैसे आई? आप बहुत साफ नजर आ रहे हैं, लेकिन उस समय राष्ट्रीय पार्टी कौन थी, मल्होत्रा जी को मालूम है।…( व्यवधान) तहलका कांड को पूरे देश ने टीवी पर देखा।…( व्यवधान) आपके समय में भ्रष्टाचार शिष्टाचार हो गया। भ्रष्टाचार पर बंदिश होनी चाहिए, भ्रष्टाचार को रोकने के लिए हाई लैवल इंडीपैंडैंट कमीशन बिठानी चाहिए।…( व्यवधान)

मैं आपके सामने एक और तथ्य लाना चाहता हूं। इराक में तेल के बदले अनाज कार्यक्रम घोटाले की जांच के लिए संयुक्त राष्ट्र द्वारा गठित वोल्कर कमेटी में एक से एक ऐसे तथ्य सामने आ रहे हैं जो खुद कमेटी के निष्कर्ष की विश्वसनीयता पर सवाल खड़े कर रहे हैं। चौंकाने वाला तथ्य यह है कि वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट तैयार होने से सात महीने पहले उसकी इंटरिम रिपोर्ट पर अमरीकी हाउस ऑफ रिप्रैजैंटेटिव्ज़ के अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मामलों यानी उनकी संसदीय समति में रिपोर्ट पर चर्चा हुई और यूएन के सदस्य देशों को रिपोर्ट की कोई प्रति नहीं दी गई।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: There are many hon. Members to speak. Please conclude.

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ®É­]Å nä¶ÉÉå BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ*…( व्यवधान) अंतरिम रिपोर्ट में कांग्रेस पार्टी का नाम हो या जम्मू कश्मीर की पैंथर पार्टी का नाम हो, अक्टूबर माही वोल्कर समति में खुले रूप से भारतीय राजनीति में जिस तरह की परिस्थिति पैदा हुई, उस बारे में मैं यही निवेदन करूंगा कि वह परिस्थिति क्यों पैदा होती है।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, I would not allow this. Nothing will be recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : <Æ]®xÉä¶ÉxÉãÉ ãÉÉì BÉEÉ ´ÉÉìªÉãÉä¶ÉxÉ âóBÉExÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA iÉÉBÉEiÉ <BÉE]Â~É BÉE®å, nä¶É BÉEÉä <BÉE]Â~É BÉE®å, ºÉƺÉn àÉå <ºÉ {É® SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä, …** भ्रष्टाचार की निश्चित रूप से गहन जांच हो और छ: महीने के भीतर रिपोर्ट आ जाए ताकि दूध का दूध और पानी का पानी हो जाए। आज जो लोग विदेशी धन लेने की चर्चा कर रहे हैं, …** क्या

* Not Recorded.

**Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

कर रहा है।…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : यह सही नहीं है।

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : विदेशी धन लेने से मना करने का सख्त कानून बनना चाहिए ताकि …*

MR. SPEAKER: I will see the proceedings. If any allegation is there, I will look into it.

…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : हमें भी ठीक से सुनाई नहीं दिया।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : मैंने संगठन के बारे में कहा है, किसी इनडिवीजुअल का नाम नहीं लिया।…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: It is I who will have to decide it, Mr. Yadav. You have made a mistake and I have made a mistake. You spoke from the wrong seat. I did not notice it earlier. I could have rejected the whole speech. Because it was my mistake, I am allowing your speech to go on record. You should speak from your own seat.








* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CHANDIGARH): May I speak from this seat? There is a difference of just a row.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but not to be treated as precedent.

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : अध्यक्ष महोदय, इराक में तेल के बदले अनाज प्रोग्राम में कुछ कथाकथित अनियमितताओं पर जो वोल्कर समति बनाई गयी, उसने अपनी रिपोर्ट में बहुत से देशों के व्यक्तियों व संस्थाओं के संबंध में प्रतिवेदन किया है, लेकिन सिर्फ हिन्दुस्तान के अलावा कहीं वह आवेश, वह उत्तेजना पैदा नहीं हुई, जो यहां हुई है। यह स्वाभाविक है। जैसा श्री मोहन सिंह जी ने पहले बात करते हुए कहा था–एक तो कारण यह है कि हम अपने आचरण के कारण, अपनी परम्पराओं के कारण, जिनका जिक्र उन्होंने पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के उस समय का किया था जब उन्होंने एक पार्टी के सदस्य के खिलाफ यहां खड़े होकर उनको बर्खास्त करने का रेजोल्यूशन पेश किया था। पहली बात यह है कि हम कहीं भी भ्रष्टाचार का कोई भी एक संकेत देखते हैं, तो उसके खिलाफ अपनी आवाज उठाना चाहते हैं। यह बात सही है कि उसके लिए हमारे देश में एक आवेश या उत्तेजना पैदा हुई, वह माना जा सकता है, लेकिन दूसरी बात है कि हम लोग अपनी पोलटिकल क्लास से अगर एक दूसरे के खिलाफ एक शब्द भी देख लेते हैं, तो यह जांच करने की कोशिश नहीं करते कि क्या उसमें सत्य है या वह सत्य हो सकता है या नहीं ? हम एकदम उस बात को पकड़ लेते हैं और एक बवाल खड़ा कर देते हैं। ऐसा ही इस वक्त हुआ है।

यह एक बहुत विस्तृत रिपोर्ट है। मैं कबूल करूंगा कि मैंने इस रिपोर्ट को पूरा नहीं पढ़ा और किसी के लिए भी इसे पूरा पढ़ना बहुत मुश्किल है। इसे बहुत लोगों ने पढ़ा है। मुझे शक है, मुझे नहीं मालूम कि आडवाणी साहब ने भी पूरी रिपोर्ट पढ़ी थी या नहीं ? लेकिन जो बातें अखबारों के जरिये आई हैं, उनको हम तथ्य मानकर, सत्य मानकर यहां बहस कर रहे हैं। क्या किसी ने यह जानने की कोशिश की है कि जो दौर नॉन-कांट्रेक्टच्युअल एंटीटिस या पर्सन्स का जिक्र जिसमें बार-बार हो रहा है, क्या उसके प्रति रिपोर्ट में कहीं कुछ दर्ज है ? यह पांच वाल्यूम्स की रिपोर्ट है। चार वाल्यूम्स में व्यापक तौर पर बहुत कुछ दर्शाया गया है, लेकिन उसका कहीं कोई जिक्र नहीं। पांचवी रिपोर्ट में व्यापक तौर पर उस संबंध में कहा गया है, लेकिन कहीं जिक्र नहीं है। बाद में टेबल थ्री में बहुत बड़ी लिस्ट दी हुई है। उसमें दो हमारे नाम हैं। वहीं से एकदम पकड़ लिया, जैसे किसी को इनसीन्यूएट करो और सजा दे दो। क्या आपने तथ्य जानने की कोशिश की ? मैं समझता हूं कि सरकार ने उस पर जो कदम उठाया, उसकी प्रशंसा होनी चाहिए थी और सही ढंग से होनी चाहिए थी कि कुछ दिनों के बीच ही सरकार ने उस पर एक कमीशन बैठा दिया।

अब यहां क्या कहा गया? यहां कहा गया कि वह कमीशन नहीं है बल्कि एक अथॉरिटी है। इन बातों पर माननीय सदस्य बहुत ज्यादा चीजों से वाकिफ हैं, इसलिए मैं उन पर कोई टिप्पणी नही करना चाहता। उसे अगर मामूली तौर से पढ़ा होता और देखा होता कि नोटीफिकेशन क्या है — क्या किसी ने नोटीफिकेशन देखने की कोशिश की ? क्या उसमें नहीं देखा कि वह भी, जो कमीशनन ऑफ इंक्वायरी एक्ट है, उसके तहत है। पूरे अधिकार उनको मिले हुए हैं। आप पूछेंगे कि क्यों नहीं उसका कमीशन नाम दिया ? आप सैक्शन ग्यारह पढि़ये, वह भी वही कमीशन बन जाता है, जो दूसरा है, सिर्फ अंतर इतना है क्योंकि यह सरकार चाहती है कि उसमें अनेक वर्ष न लग जायें और तहलका कमेटी जैसे उस पर कमीशन न बैठें जो उस पर फैसला न दें।

१६.२९ hrs. (Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav in the Chair)

हम चाहते हैं कि कुछ महीने, जो उसमें तय किये हैं, उस समय में हम सच्चाई की तह तक पहुंचे। यह तभी हो सकता है जब उसमें आठ – बी सैक्शन वगैरह की जरूरत न पड़े। उस पर एतराज हो रहा है। वह सरकार की तरफ से एक प्रयास है कि जो सच्चाई है, उसे हम लोगों के सामने लेकर आयें।

यहां कहा गया था, उस वक्त बार-बार उस बात का जिक्र किया जा रहा था कि कांग्रेस की अध्यक्षा श्रीमती सोनिया गांधी ने बहुत देरी के साथ उस पर जिक्र किया। क्या आप भूल गये हैं, आप पूरी रिपोर्ट पढि़ये — मैं फिर कहता हूं कि अगर अखबारों के दो शब्द देखकर हम अपना फैसला बना लेते हैं तो मुझे कुछ नहीं कहना। क्या आप नहीं जान सकते कि उन्होंने कहा था कि ‘ I had kept saying. मैं बार-बार कहती रही थी। ” उसमें यह कहा गया था। क्या वह आपके घर अपनी हर प्रैस स्टेटमैंट भेजे कि मैंने आज यह कहा, आज मैंने ये विचार दिये हैं ? यहां पार्लियामैंट में खड़े होकर जब हम चर्चा शुरू करते हैं – यह एक अच्छी चर्चा हुई है। थोडी देर बीच में विघन जरूर हुआ, चर्चा में एक रुकावट हुई कि ४० मिनट में कुछ नहीं कहा गया। एक पुराने सदस्य हैं जिनके मन में कोई बसी हुई है, एक माइंड सेट है कि किसी न किसी ढंग से मैं वह बातें कहूं, जिन बातों से अब कोई ताल्लुक नहीं, बेशक वह हमारे रूल्स के तहत आता है या नहीं । उन चालीस मिनट का जिक्र मैं नहीं करना चाहूंगा। मैं बाकी समय का जिक्र करना चाहूंगा जब एक सकारात्मक तथा अच्छी बहस हुई। उसमें मुद्दे उठाये गये हैं लेकिन फिर मैं एक बात कहना चाहता हूं। कमीशन किस बात के लिए बनाया गया है, उन बातों को जाना जाए। जब यह प्रश्न हमारे सामने है, मैं यह नहीं कहता कि इतने में यह साबित हो गया कि कहीं हमारा कोई ताल्लुक नहीं है। कहीं बीच में अगर एक नाम आ गया, उससे एक बुनियाद बनती है आगे तफतीश करने की और वह तफ्तीश एक ऑथोरिटी, एक कमीशन के जरिये बनती है और १५ दिन भी ज्यादा कहा गया, दस दिन के बीच में ही वे डॉक्यूमेंट्स वहां से यहां आ गये। क्या कभी सुना था इतनी जल्दी होते हुए ? क्या इससे सरकार की उत्सुकता मालूम नहीं होती कि सरकार सच्चाई तक पहुंचना चाहती है? क्या डाइरेक्टरेट ऑफ रेवेन्यू इंटेलीजेंस और डाइरेक्टरेट ऑफ एनफोर्समेंट सरकार के अन्तर्गत नहीं है ? क्या उसके तहत सरकार एक्शन नहीं ले रही है? उस बात की क्या प्रशंसा नहीं होनी चाहिए कि सरकार ने परवाह नहीं की कि अपनी पार्टी के खिलाफ वहां इंक्वायरी हो सकती है, उनसे भी कोई स्टेटमेंट लिया जा सकता है, यह सरकार उसको रोक सकती थी लेकिन सरकार ने अपनी जिम्मेदारी समझी- क्यों? क्योंकि हम मानते हैं कि उस रिपोर्ट में जो दर्शाया गया है, वह सत्य नहीं है। कहीं न कहीं से नाम आ गये हैं। आज यह कहने का मेरा अधिकार नहीं है कि वे कहां से आये हैं लेकिन हमारे सामने संभावनाएं खड़ी हैं और वे संभावनाएं क्या हैं ? मैं कबूल करना चाहूंगा कि पहली संभावना क्या है? पहली संभावना यह हो सकती है कि जो दो नाम बताये गये हैं, क्या उन्होंने कोई अनियमितताएं की हैं? क्या किसी ढंग से वहां से वाउचर लेकर उनसे कोई पैसा बनाया गया है, यह कहीं नहीं कहा गया। यह मैं अपने आप से आपको कह रहा हूं। यह एक संभावना बन सकती है।

दूसरी संभावना जो बन सकती है कि क्या इराक के बीच में किसी वक्त किसी के नाम तो किसी ने इस्तेमाल नहीं कर लिये कि किसी के नाम में पैसा लेकर डाल दिया और कोई पैसा साइफन-ऑफ तो नहीं कर दिया गया ? इन बातों को तय किया जाएगा। मैं इसी संदर्भ में आप पर इल्जाम नहीं लगाना चाहता। जिस बात का जिक्र यहां बार-बार हुआ है, उस वक्त सरकार आपकी थी। आपने उस समय हर प्रयास किये कि वहां से देश के लिए हमारा सौदा ज्यादा हो। आपने प्रयास किये होंगे कि सौदे हों। क्या कोई बीच में किसी तरह की कोई बात नहीं हो सकती थी ? आपने बार-बार इस चीज पर जोर दिया। “क्या सोनिया गांधी जी ने एक पत्र नहीं लिखा था?” क्या आप अखबार नहीं पढ़ते? क्या अखबारों में उसके बाद नहीं आया या फिर आप जानना नहीं चाहते अगर अखबार पढ़ते भी हैं कि फ्रेटरनल ग्रीटिंग्स अगर किसी को दी जाती हैं तो उस पत्र का जिक्र फिर आप कर रहे हैं, फिर जोर डाल रहे हैं। क्या आप भूल गये कि श्री अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी जी ने, जो उस वक्त के प्रधान मंत्री थे, उन्होंने एक पत्र राम नाईक को दिया था और राम नाईक ने उसके बाद एक वेबसाइट पर कहा था कि मैं यह पत्र लेकर आया हूं और पूरी गंभीरता के साथ इराक के साथ अपने रिश्ते बनाना चाहता हूं क्योंकि इराक ने सैंक्शंस का मुकाबला बड़ा डटकर किया है। यह आपने कहा था और आज आप हमारे ऊपर यह इल्जाम लगा रहे हैं । मैं आडवाणी जी की बहुत इज्जत करता हूं जब से मैं पार्लियामेंट में १९८४ से हूं, जब से मुझे उन्हें नजदीक से देखने का मौका मिला है और हम समतियों में भी इकट्ठे रहे थे। मैं नहीं मानता कि जल्दी-जल्दी वे ऐसी बात कह देते हैं लेकिन उन्होंने एक ऐसी गंभीर बात कही है और वह सिर्फ हमारे डॉमेस्टिक, यहां बात करने के लिए नहीं कही है, बल्कि उसकी रेमीफिकेशंस क्या हो सकती है, यह नहीं सोचा गया। उन्होंने कहा कि इस पैसे का इस्तेमाल देश की नीतियां बदलने के लिए हो रहा है। यह कहा गया है और इसके साथ आपके साथी जो बहुत सीनियर हैं और हालांकि आज वह हाउस के सदस्य नहीं हैं, मैं उनका नाम नहीं लेना चाहता लेकिन शायद ब्रीफिंग उन्होंने ही आडवाणी जी को की होगी। उन्होंने स्पष्ट रूप से बाहर ऐसे ही कहा था कि उस वक्त पैसे लिये गये, आप कनक्लूजन पर पहुंच गये, आपने तो फैसला सुना दिया और आपका फैसला देशवासियों के लिए तथा अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर भी फाइनल है। उन्होंने कह दिया कि यह पैसा लिया गया है क्योंकि अंदर लॉबिंग हाउस में हुई थी कि जो यह एनडीए की सरकार उस वक्त इराक में फोर्सेज भेजना चाहती थी, वह नहीं भेजे-यह कहा गया है। अब इन दोनों बातों को पढि़ए। यह इल्जाम सिर्फ एक सदस्य पर नहीं लगाया जा रहा है। यह इल्जाम पूरे पार्लियामेंट पर भी लगाया जा रहा है क्योंकि पार्लियामेंट में .यह रिजोल्यूशन पास हुआ था। आप यह कहने की कैसे जुर्रत कर रहे हैं ? मल्होत्रा जी, जो फैसला हुआ था, उस फैसले में आप भी हिस्सेदार थे। क्या आप नहीं चाहते थे ? हम लोगों ने आपको कहा, आप मजबूर हुए क्योंकि हमेशा इराक हिन्दुस्तान के साथ था। बहुत बार जब चुनौती का समय आया था, उस वक्त इराक हमारे साथ था। तब आपने उस बात की परवाह नहीं की। लेकिन फिर भी यहां रिज्योल्युशन हुआ। आज आप उसे यह कहने के लिए इन्टरप्रेट कर रहे हैं कि उस रिज्योल्युशन के लिए एक मोटिवेशनल फोर्स यह थी कि वहां से पैसा आया था। आप इस बात को मानिए। क्या आपने यह पूछने की कोशिश की थी कि उसकी टम्र्स एण्ड कंडीशन्स क्या थीं? उस कमीशन ने क्या कहा है, आपने इसे जानने की कोशिश नहीं की है। आपने कह दिया कि यह सरकार उन लोगों के खिलाफ कार्यवाही करने में विफल रही, जिनके नाम इस रिपोर्ट में थे। क्या दो नामों का आ जाना ही बहुत है? कल को मैं आपकी पार्टी के चार नाम अगर डलवा दूं और फिर हम यहां शोरगुल खड़ा करें कि आपको फांसी दी जाए – मैं वोल्कर कमेटी के अलावा कुछ नहीं कह रहा हूँ – कहने के लिए बहुत कुछ है और मैं दोहराना चाहता हूँ कि मुझे नसीहत देना वाजिब नहीं है, लेकिन फिर मुझे वही बात दोहरानी पड़ेगी। यह आपको अधिकार है कि जहां आप सरकार के खिलाफ कोई बात देखें, आप उसके खिलाफ आवाज उठाएं। यह आपका अधिकार है और आपकी जिम्मेदारी भी है। लेकिन जो लोग शीशे के घरों में रहते हैं, वे दूसरे के घरों पर पत्थर नहीं फेंका करते। लेकिन आपकी तरफ से उसके अलावा कुछ नहीं हो रहा है। आप समझते हैं कि जब आपके हाथ में कोई मुद्दा नहीं है, कोई बात नहीं है तो कहीं से भी कोई चीज अखबारों से पढ़ ली और उसके पीछे पड़ गए। क्या आप दूसरे लोगों को मौका दे रहे हैं कि वे आपके लिए एजेण्डा तय करें? शोर आदि की वजह से दो दिन से हाउस नहीं चल सका। पहले ही दिन हमने माना और कहा कि हम इस पर बहस करवाने को तैयार हैं, लेकिन आपने नहीं माना। आपने नियम १८४ के तहत इसके लिए नोटिस दिया । इसके बावजूद कि यह मामला नियम १८४ के तहत नहीं आता है, हमने आपकी बात मानी । बहस शुरू हुई लेकिन आपकी तरफ से क्या प्रयास किया गया? खैर छोड़िए इस बात को, क्योंकि वह प्रयास विफल रहा। आपके इरादे भी विफल रहे हैं। आप जानते हैं कि उस रिपोर्ट में कहीं जिक्र नहीं है, कांग्रेस सहित दो व्यक्तियों और संस्थाओं के नाम के बारे में कहीं कुछ नहीं लिखा है, कहीं यह साबित नहीं हुआ कि उनको पैसा मिला। मैं इसे साबित नहीं हुआ न कह कर, उससे एक स्टेप नीचे रहकर, यह कहूंगा कि वोल्कर कमेटी ने अपने समय में कहीं काई तफ्तीश नहीं की। …( व्यवधान)

MR. CHAIRMAN : No interruptions, please.

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : BÉEcÉÓ iÉ{ÉDiÉÉÒ¶É xÉcÉÓ BÉEÉÒ MɪÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ ªÉÉ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ cèhb®É<ÉË]MÉ ªÉÉ cºiÉÉFÉ® BÉEcÉÓ cé* BÉDªÉÉ BÉEcÉÓ ªÉc ÉÊãÉJÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè? àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ näBÉE® ªÉc {ÉÚUiÉÉ cÚÄ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ BÉEcÉÓ <ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç àÉå ÉÊãÉJÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ xÉÖàÉÉ<xnä ªÉÉ +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉÓ cºiÉÉFÉ® ÉÊBÉEA cÉå? …( व्यवधान) उसकी तफ्तीश के लिए ही यह कमीशन बनाया गया है। …( व्यवधान)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bansal, please address the Chair.



ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : बंसल जी, कृपया अपनी बात कंक्लूड कीजिए।

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : महोदय, मैं आपसे दो मिनट का समय और चाहूंगा।

क्या कहीं यह दिखाया गया है कि उसमें ऐसा कुछ हुआ है? मैं यह बात अपने जिम्मे नहीं लेना चाहता कि मैं वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट पर किसी तरह की कोई टिप्पणी करूं,, लेकिन मैं यह बताना चाहता हूँ कि वोल्कर कमेटी रिपोर्ट में जिन अन्य लोगों के नाम दिए गए हैं, उनको अलग-अलग मौका मिला था, क्योंकि उनके प्रति उसमें दस्तावेज भी थे ।हिन्दुस्तान के किसी भी व्यक्ति के नाम से दस्तावेज नहीं थे। मल्होत्रा साहब, मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि कांग्रेस पार्टी या कांग्रेस पार्टी के किसी सदस्य का नाम उसमें नहीं है। केवल एक सारणी में, टेबल में नाम है। दूसरे लोगों के प्रति दस्तावेज थे।

मैं केवल दो उदाहरण देकर अपनी बात समाप्त करूंगा। पहला नाम किसका था, इसका जिक्र अभी हुआ है। * मैं सिर्फ उस रिपोर्ट का जिक्र करना चाहता हूं और किसी संदर्भ में नहीं कह रहा हूं।

सभापति महोदय : नाम डिलीट कर दिया जाए।

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : मैं अपने वाक्य को वापस लेता हूं। यह समझ लिया जाए कि नहीं कहा। लेकिन मैं जो बात कहने जा रहा हूं वह महत्वपूर्ण है। दो जगह नाम थे। उन्होंने उसको चुनौती दी। उन्होंने साबित किया कि जो दस्तावेज थे, वे जाली थे, वे बनाए गए थे और गढ़े गए थे। एक सदस्य को बीच में मौका मिला, सीनेट की कमेटी में जाने का। वहां क्या सवाल-जवाब हुए, सीनेट की कमेटी ने भी उसके बाद अपना विचार बदल दिया। आप मल्होत्रा जी उनकी रिपोर्ट को पढ़ें। मैंने थोड़ा-थोड़ा देखा है कि उस रिपोर्ट में क्या है। उसके साथ एक टिप्पणी वोलकर रिपोर्ट में हुई है। उस हालात में हम यह नहीं कहते कि आप हमारे खिलाफ कुछ मत कहें, कोई बात न कहें। मैं कहता हूं कि दो जगह नाम आए हैं, लेकिन उसके बाद जो रेशनल है, सही तरीका क्या होना चाहिए, वह इस सरकार ने अपनाया है। वह तरीका यह हो सकता था, जिसकी दिशा कांग्रेस पार्टी की अध्यक्षा सोनिया जी ने तय की और आदेश दिया यूपीए सरकार को, जिसे सरकार ने माना कि अगर कहीं जिक्र आया है, तो हम पूरी तफ्तीश करेंगे। इस कारण मैं कहता हूं कि उन्होंने उसकी धज्जियां उड़ा दीं। अगर वही एनोलॉजी लेकर हम आगे जाएं, तो ठीक नहीं है। वे डाक्यूमेंट्स फेब्रिकेटेड या फोर्ज हो सकते हैं। इराक के पुराने आफशियल ने खुद माना कि उन्हें बार-बार कहा जा रहा था, सोमो, जो स्टेट ऑयल मार्केटिंग ओर्गेनाइजेशन है उसकी बात को मानकर कहा जा रहा है, लेकिन उन्होंने भी वही कहा कि इस संस्था ने मुझे इस बात के लिए रखा था कि डाक्यूमेंट तैयार करो। शायद आपने या रुप चंद पाल जी ने उसका जिक्र किया था। उसके बाद जब आक्यूपेशन फोर्सेज पहुंची, पूरे बगदाद में लैटर पैड्स बांटे जा रहे थे, मंत्रियों के नाम पर सब कुछ लिखा जा सकता था। किसी भी तरीके से, जो चीज दिमाग में आए, उस बात का डाक्यूमेंट तैयार किया जा सकता था। उस हालात में हम मानते

* Not Recorded.

हैं कि अगर रूल आफ लॉ से गवर्न करते हैं, हमारे ज्यूडशियल सिस्टम का दुनिया में बड़ा नाम है और उस वक्त मामूली सी लीड कोई दे दे, हम उसके पीछे लग जाएं, अपनी सोच और शक्ति को छोड़ दें और उसे

मानना शुरू कर दें कि यह जो हुआ है, सही है, यह अनुचित है। विपक्ष के नेता भी उसी पर खड़े होकर बोले हैं। मुझे इसका अफसोस है।…( व्यवधान) This is the Commission.… (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Nothing will go on record. I am not allowing you.

(Interruptions) …*

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : आपने कमीशन बनाए, कैमरे में सब कुछ आ गया, फिर भी बात नहीं माने। क्या हुआ था जब १५ दिन तक संसद में हमारी आवाज नहीं सुनी गई। हमने नियम १९३ के अंतर्गत चर्चा का नोटिस भी दिया था, नियम १८४ की तो बात ही छोड़ दो। लेकिन आपने कहा कि हमारा नोटिस जो नियम १८४ के तहत है, उसे स्थगन प्रस्ताव में बदल दो। हमने उसे मान लिया। इसलिए आप हमारी और अपनी तुलना नहीं कर सकते। आप संसद में भले ही कुछ कह लें, लेकिन बाहर जाकर अकेले में थोड़ा सोचें कि उस वक्त में और इस वक्त में क्या फर्क है, क्या अंतर है। किस हिसाब से एक पर्टसिपेटरी डैमोक्रेसी की तरह से यूपीए सरकार चलना चाहती है, किस ढंग से चाहती है कि सभी को साथ लेकर चला जाए, यह देखने की बात है। आप कोई गलती निकालते हैं, तो हम उस पर अपने आपसे इंट्रोस्पेक्शन करके जानना चाहते हैं, करना चाहते हैं। उस बात पर सहयोग चाहते हैं। सहयोग यह नहीं है कि आप जो करते हैं हल्ला करते रहें, हम चाहते हैं कि क्रिटीकली एनोलाइज करें कि कितना फर्क पड़ा है आज और पहले के ज्यूरिस्प्रूडेंस पर।

* Not Recorded.

सभापति जी, आप मुझे आदेश दे रहे हैं कि मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करूं। मैं सिर्फ यही कहना चाहता हूं जिस चीज का जिक्र मोहन सिंह जी ने किया था, आज भी कांग्रेस उसी परम्परा पर खड़ी है। आज भी वही आदर्श हैं, जिन्हें लेकर वह आगे बढ़ रही है, जो किसी वक्त पंडित जवाहर लाल नेहरू जी ने तय किए थे। आज भी कांग्रेस के गले में वही ताबीज है, जो महात्मा गांधी ने पहनाया था। वही प्रेरणा लेकर हम आगे चल रहे हैं। हम इस बात के प्रति वचनबद्ध हैं और इसे कहने की जरूरत नहीं है।

सात तारीख को कमेटी बना दी, उसके कुछ दिन बाद ११ तारीख को अथोरिटी बना दी। हम चाहते हैं कि ये उसकी तह में जाएं और जितना समय तय हुआ है, उसमें पूरी तफ्तीश करें। उसके बाद रिपोर्ट आ जाएगी और वह रिपोर्ट कानून के तहत संसद के सामने पेश होगी। फिर उस पर बहस कीजिए। आप फिर इसका जिक्र कीजिए कि क्या चीज इसमें नहीं रखी गई? सिर्फ बाहर कहने के लिए कहा जा रहा है कि शायद कोई बात छिपाई गई या शायद पारदर्शिता नहीं है। आप जनता को गुमराह करने की कोशिश न करें, क्योंकि आज लोग गुमराह नहीं हो सकते।

16.45 hrs. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

यह बात वे समझते हैं कि असलियत क्या है? लोग इस विषय में जानते हैं और उन्होनें कुछ देर पहले ही फैसला कर दिया।…( व्यवधान) साथ ही साथ महाराष्ट्र में व अन्य जगहों पर भी होता रहा है और होता रहेगा।…( व्यवधान) मैं कहना चाहूंगा कि यूपीए सरकार अपनी जिम्मेदारियों को समझती और पहचानती है, इन्हीं शब्दों के साथ मैं इस रिजोल्यूशन का पूरे जोर के साथ विरोध करता हूं।

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI: Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity. I would like to start by referring to Mr. Rupchand Pal’s extremely moving speech where he started about Iraq. Iraq has been the victim of a genocide which followed years and years of sanctions. Thousands of people of this wonderful, brave and independent country suffered for the fault of its leader and a few people around him. The moment sanctions were put on it, it started dying. What are we discussing? We are not discussing the Congress Party’s relationship with Iraq which has been indeed long and very supportive. We are not discussing India’s relationship with Iraq which has been the same. We are discussing why people went to this dying country like flies to suck off little bits of blood and money from its carcass … (Interruptions). We are not talking about you.… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record. Please sit down.

(Interruptions) …*

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : We are talking about all the people not just the Indian names or other names. We are talking about all the people who went there to get contracts, to get vouchers and to get whatever little bit of money they could get from a country that was already bleeding to death.

Now Mr. Pal has said that the report has not named any American companies. I agree with him. It is extremely strange that they have not. But the companies that it has named and the people that it has named, many of those people, as he has also said, belong to high political positions in every country and he questions the fact that they have been named. I would like to say that it is only these kinds of people that have access to international deals and vouchers. We are not the only country. Perhaps every country has got black sheep who take advantage of positions and situations like this to go and make money. What we are asking here is not who has been named in the Volcker report.

* Not Recorded.

The point is what does India object to the most? We object to the word ‘dalal’ which is considered the most abusive word in the entire vocabulary. Why do we object to middlemen in Defence deals? Because we believe it compromises our defence security. Our Foreign Policy security perhaps precedes defence deals because our defence deals or defence management is done only after our Foreign Policy is made. Mr. Pal said that everybody who was picked up or named was named because he opposed the sanctions. What I am saying is that let us twist it around. After all it is a prism. The truth is prismatic and you can look at it from so many different directions depending on what their own experience is. We are saying here that it is not that they were named because they opposed sanctions. We are wanting to find this out: Did they oppose sanctions because they were paid? That is what we are finding out. Now who came first – the chicken or the egg? Did they get paid before or did they get paid after and was it directly related to the stand that they took in the international foreign policy for India?


SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : That is an excellent question and that would be found out by the Commission… (Interruptions) If we were to presume that the Volcker Committee… (Interruptions)

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: You are asking your questions a little bit too early. First let us establish that there were payments made and then we can see that what it is concerned with.

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : I do not have to establish that because the Volcker Committee has said it and this discussion is on what the Volcker Committee has said. We are not questioning the Volcker Committee, we are questioning the reasons as to why it happened and according notice what has happened to the people indicted or named – you can put the word `allegedly’ all over the place. That is fine. I am sure the speaker will do that. There are no shades of grey that can be allowed in an issue that clearly compromises the Foreign Policy of India and imputes the taking of fund by the Congress Party and the Foreign Minister. If the Congress party sees that their Foreign Minister is culpable, then they should have removed him outright. If they did not see him culpable, then they should not have removed him at all. This action of allowing him to be a Cabinet Minister, attend Cabinet meetings till today and have his words in decisions that affect national integrity and foreign policy while under a cloud is inexplicable. The only opinion that it generates in public is that, perhaps, he was acting under the behest of his seniors in the Party which is why he cannot be punished, or that he knows the names of other beneficiaries who are so highly connected… (Interruptions) None of this, the Food-for-Oil Committee vouchers, specifically for India, could have been done without the knowledge of the Food for Oil Committee. Who was one of the most senior Indians heading that Committee. I will not take his name. I am sure it will come out in the report of the Commission. What was his previous assignment under the two Congress Prime Ministers? Who had sent him to the United Nations? What was the relationship of the permanent representative of India to the United Nations during that time to the Executive Director of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation? All these have been named and all of them are there in the Volcker Committee Report… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, earlier, the hon. Speaker had given a ruling that except for the purported issue named within the Volcker Committee Report and also the text of the motion, nothing should be quoted. That is the ruling… (Interruptions) Now, any issue of a Government of India official who had been deputed from time to time to the United Nations cannot be questioned in this manner like during whose Prime Ministership they were sent. That is most unfair. It is not in the tradition of the House to discuss any issue in this manner… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : You had spent ten minutes on discussing the Report of the Jain Commission. Some other people spent more than 20 minutes on the Tehelka Report. I also can surely ask questions… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: But you cannot ask anything beyond the scope of the debate… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : Who was the owner of M/s Humdam? … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: We have to regulate the proceedings of the House as per the ruling given by the hon. Speaker and also as per the text of the motion. We cannot discuss Tom, Dick and Harry as to trying to find out a relationship between a person who was deputed to the United Nations some 20 years back and things like that. Those are out of the text of this motion. How could you do that… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : Now, has M/s Hamdam been mentioned in the Report or not? Who are the owners of this company? M/s Hamdam has been mentioned as a company. Who are the two owners of this company? One of them is a close relative and a close friend of Shri Natwar Singh and his son. He is the son-in-law of a senior Himachal Pradesh Congress leader. Who is the other owner? The other owner is the son of the previous OSD to the former Prime Minister, the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. These are the two owners of Hamdaam. Everywhere you look, you will find that it comes back to the same central point. Everybody is connected with it.… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: Sir, I am talking of rules. … (Interruptions) Sinners are killers.… (Interruptions) If Nathuram Godse was the killer of Mahatma Gandhi, does it mean that all relatives of Nathuram Godse are linked with the killing of Mahatma Gandhi?… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI : Sir, I am not going to say more on this. The Congress Party has very many people whom I have known for many years. They are honourable, decent and honest people who genuinely have a vision for India. Are they all going to be led into Bofors Chapter II?

SHRI A. KRISHNASWAMY : Sir, I rise to oppose this Motion on behalf of DMK Party.

Oil-for-food scheme launched by the United Nations Security Council permitting Iraq to trade oil to pay for essential goods was on humanitarian consideration. There is no doubt that every scheme has got loopholes and some people might have exploited them. The Volcker Report has come now and it has named many companies in India and abroad where some irregularities had taken place. There are also reports that tax violations had taken place and the Enforcement Directorate is already investigating the matter. The Volcker Report has also said that these transactions had taken place mostly during 2000 and 2002 when the BJP Government was in office.

The Opposition Parties, especially our friends in the BJP are demanding the resignation of Shri Natwar Singh on the plea that he has been named in the Volcker Report. Sir, I am just asking a question to them through you. When the scam had happened, the BJP was in the Government. Then how can they forget their responsibilities? But we appreciate the steps taken by the Government of India and the hon. Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh by instituting an Inquiry Committee headed by Mr. Dayal who is a renowned diplomat. That Committee will go into all the technicalities of the deal, including scrutiny of documents as being made available by the United Nations panel and the independent Inquiry Committee. Apart from this, the Government has also appointed former Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Justice Pathak under the Commission of Inquiry Act to go into the whole issue with proper terms of reference.

Therefore, instead of waiting for the findings from these two panels, jumping to the conclusion and asking for the resignation of Shri Natwar Singh is very unfortunate. Our leader, Dr. Kalaingnar has already issued a statement to the effect that only when a person is found guilty, he should be asked to quit office.

Now, the BJP friends may touch their hearts and answer one question. Only by the mention of the name of Shri Natwar Singh in the Report, you are seeking his resignation. But when Advaniji was the Home Minister, how did he deal with a person who was convicted in a corruption case? In April 2001, …* nomination papers in four Assembly Constituencies, namely, Andipatti, Krishnagiri, Pudukkottai and Bhuvanagiri were rejected by the respective Returning Officers. At least, two of them were rejected on the ground that she stood convicted not in one but in three corruption cases.

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : Sir, how is it relevant to Volcker Report?… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may be expunged.

SHRI A. KRISHNASWAMY : Sir, I am talking of corruption cases.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do not mention the names of persons who are not present in the House.

SHRI A. KRISHNASWAMY : On 14th August, 2001, she was allowed to take office as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. I am asking the BJP friends one question. Why did you not advise the then Tamil Nadu Governor not to allow a convicted person to take oath of the office of Chief Minister?

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : How is this related to Volcker Report?… (Interruptions)

SHRI A. KRISHNASWAMY : Sir, Advaniji spoke about the sovereignty of the country. I would put him one question. Has he protected the sovereignty of the country? Those who were convicted were permitted to occupy the highest chair of the State, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

17.00 hrs.

The present situation is entirely different. Before stalling the proceedings of the House, before making any demands or making any protests, the Opposition

*Expunged as ordered by the Chair



should consider that the hon. Prime Minister has already ordered an Inquiry and divested the portfolio of the Minister concerned pending result of the Inquiry.

I would request our friends on the Opposition not to adopt double standards because if they start making such demands like resignation at the drop of the hat, then there will be problems for the smooth functioning of democracy in this country. I appeal to our friends on the Opposition to wait for the findings of the two panels.

SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA: Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I thank you for allowing me to participate on the Adjournment Motion on Volcker report.

Sir, I am surprised at the behavior of the Congress party. They have indulged in …*** but they are not accepting it. The people of India are greatly concerned that earlier, the Congressmen used to indulge in …*** in the country but now they have become ..***

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : No, Sir. This should be expunged. That word should be expunged. … (Interruptions) This should be expunged. This cannot go on like this. He cannot accuse a party as a … This is unparliamentary. Sir, you can see the rules. This is unparliamentary. … (Interruptions)

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय : मैंने पहले ही एक्सपंज कर दिया है। इस हाउस का जो मैम्बर नहीं, उसका नाम नहीं जायेगा।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Except Dr. Rattan Singh Ajnala’s speech, nothing will go on record.

(Interruptions) …**

SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA : The people of India are concerned about this … They should have accepted that they have indulged in this but instead of accepting their crime, they are pleading innocence.

If they had not done anything wrong, where was the need of constituting a Commission. If they had not done anything unlawful, why did the person concerned resign? If nothing wrong was done, why raids were conducted? You will be

__________________________________________________________________*English Translation of the speech originally delivered in Punjabi.

** Not Recorded.

*** Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

surprised that on the one hand, people are dying in Iraq. On the other hand, these people are minting money. Is this humanity? What are they saying? That you can take the name of Congress party but you cannot take the name of its leader …*


MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already expunged it.


SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA: Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, what was needed was that Mr Natwar Singh should have resigned on his own. … (Interruptions.)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already expunged it.

SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA: He says that he is not involved. If he is not involved, then there is no need to read the Volcker report. Sir, the fact is that he is involved. But, he alone is not involved. People from Punjab are involved. …* is involved… (Interruptions)…

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have expunged it


MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already expunged it…

SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA: They were earlier an Indian company indulging in theft. They have become an international company… (Interruptions)…

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : No Sir, this should be expunged…

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already expunged that.

SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA: Sir, if they are true and have nothing to hide, why are they afraid? Only Indians are not involved in this. Foreigners are also involved in this. Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, we are all concerned.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please conclude.


*Expunged as ordered by the Chair



SARDAR RATTAN SINGH AJNALA: Deputy Speaker Sir, everyone is concerned. We all want that those who are involved in it should be given stern punishment, so that people should know that this loot not of national level but of international level has stopped.

श्री मधुसूदन मिस्त्री : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉVÉ +É{ÉÉäVÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä VÉÉä àÉÉä¶ÉxÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå ãÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè, àÉé =ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA JÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cÚÆ* àÉé VÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc àÉÉä¶ÉxÉ ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ ABÉE {ÉÉäÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ àÉÉäÉÊ]´É, {ÉÉäÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ MÉäxÉ +ÉÉè® àÉèãÉäÉÊ¶ÉªÉºÉ A]ÉÒSªÉÚb BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ãÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* <ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉSÉ ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊ®¶iÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cé* ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ ºÉSÉ fÚÆfxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉä cé +ÉÉè® xÉ cÉÒ ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ ºÉSÉ VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé* =xcå ºÉSÉ VÉÉxÉxÉä àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ®ºÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* <xÉBÉEÉ <Æ]®äº] ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ <iÉxÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ àÉÉä¶ÉxÉ BÉEä VÉÉÊ®ªÉä VªÉÉnÉ ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ =xcå ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä {ÉÉäÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ MÉäxÉ cÉä +ÉÉè® <xÉBÉEÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE +ÉÉBÉEÉÆFÉÉ {ÉEãÉÉÒ£ÉÚiÉ cÉä* <ºÉBÉEä +ÉãÉÉ´ÉÉ <xcå ºÉSÉ VÉÉxÉxÉä àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç <Æ]®äº] xÉcÉÓ cè* +ÉÉVÉ BÉEä ÉÊbºBÉE¶ÉxÉ ºÉä º{É­] ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <xÉBÉEÉ ºÉSÉ VÉÉxÉxÉä ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ´ÉɺiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® VÉÉä ABÉE ºÉèÉÎxºÉÉÊ]´É ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè…( व्यवधान) आपकी तरह नहीं है, जो तहलका और दूसरे मामलों की जो मिसालें यहां दी गईं हैं, जिसका मोशन लाने में जो आपका एटीच्यूड था, उससे बहुत ज्यादा सैन्सिटिव है, यह आप मानकर चलिये। लेकिन हम जानते हैं कि इसके बावजूद भी जैसे ही यह बात सामने आई, सरकार ने तुरंत इंक्वायरी कमेटी बैठाई तथा फॉरेन मनिस्टर का वहां से तबादला कर दिया। यह सब सरकार ने सच जानने के लिए किया, चूंकि हमें इसकी रूट में जाना है। हम जानना चाहते हैं कि सच क्या है। लेकिन हमारे सामने बैठे हुए मित्रों को इस बात में कोई इंटरेस्ट नहीं है।

अब मैं रिपोर्ट की बात पर आता हूं। इस रिपोर्ट के बारे में सुबह से बहुत हल्ला-गुल्ला हो रहा है। रिपोर्ट का जो पूरा कांस्टीटयूशन है, जो पूरा स्ट्रक्चर है, उसमें रिपोर्ट के कन्टैन्ट के बारे में पूरी दुनिया में बहुत बड़े सवाल खड़े किये गये हैं। उसका थोड़ा सा लिट्रेचर जो मुझे मिला है, उसमें से मैं कहना चाहता हूं। इस रिपोर्ट को बनाने का काम यूएन में करीब ६० अधिकारियों को दिया गया। कोई नहीं जानता कि वे ६० आदमी कौन थे, उनका बैकग्राउंड क्या था, उनका एफलियेशन क्या था। लोग मांग रहे हैं लेकिन वे बता नहीं रहे हैं। इन्होंने किसको इंटरव्यू दिए, उस इंटरव्यू के कंटैन्ट क्या हैं, यूएन कमेटी रिपोर्ट में कोई जानकारी नहीं दी गई। यहां तक कि यूएन की जो अलग-अलग समतियां हैं, उनसे भी यह चीज़ छिपाई गई है, उसके सामने नहीं रखी गई है। इसके कंटैन्शन सीधे दूसरी बातों से है। इसलिए मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि रिपोर्ट को स्वयं तैयार करने का प्रोसैस ट्रांसपेरेन्ट नहीं है और न ही वह ट्रांसपेरेन्ट बनाना चाहते हैं। इससे रिपोर्ट के बारे में एक बहुत बड़ा सस्पीशन खड़ा होता है कि रिपोर्ट के अंदर जो चीजें दिखाई गई हैं, उसका मोटिव आखिर क्या हो सकता है। आप जानते हैं कि यूएन के संबंध में एक देश के विचार बहुत प्रचलित हैं। कितने देशों को यूएन में हयूमन राइट्स कमेटी के बारे में शिकायत है क्योंकि यह कमेटी पर्टिकुलरली एक देश के अंदर हयूमन राइट्स का जो वायलेशन हो रहा है, उसके तथ्य पूरी दुनिया के सामने रख रही है। इसलिए उससे वे नाराज़ हैं। इतना ही नहीं, इस देश के कितने आदमी अभी भी चाहते हैं कि यूरेनियम और प्लूटोनियम जिसको प्रोसैस करने की प्रक्रिया पूरी दुनिया में कई देश चला रहे हैं, उस पर यूएन में एक रिज़ाल्यूशन लाया जाए जिससे लोग सहमत नहीं हैं। इस समति के एक सदस्य ने इस देश के बारे में ऐसा भी कहा है कि उनके देश की जो कमेटी थी, उनके आदमियों पर यूएस स्टेट डिपार्टमैंट से प्रैशर लाया गया। इतना ही नहीं, उनसे कहा गया कि यूएन की रिपोर्ट को देखो और इस देश के अंदर जो कंपनियां हैं, उन कंपनियों का क्या रोल रहा है, वह नहीं देखो। इसलिए यूएस की जो कंपनियां हैं, उनमें से किसी का भी नाम इसमें नहीं है। मैं इस रिपोर्ट की ट्रांसपेरेन्सी के बारे में कहना चाहता हूं कि इस रिपोर्ट के अंदर नाम लिखते वक्त जिन जिन के नाम आए थे, उनमें फॉर्मर यूएन सैक्रेटरी जनरल का भी नाम था, लेकिन उनको एक मौका दिया गया, चिट्ठी लिखी गई और उनके बैंक अकाउंट से उनको पता चला कि वे इसमें इनवाल्व्ड नहीं हैं और इस वजह से उनका नाम क्लियर कर दिया गया। इस कमेटी के चेयरमैन ने भारत के अंदर ऐसी कोई प्रक्रिया नहीं अपनाई और भारत में जो दो नाम आए, उनको ऐसी कोई जानकारी नहीं दी गई और वे नाम सीधे-सीधे रिपोर्ट में दे दिये गये।

आज सुबह आडवाणी जी ने सवाल उठाया था कि इस रिपोर्ट के अंदर विदेश मंत्री और कांग्रेस के नाम कैसे आ सकते हैं। मैं अपनी शंका व्यक्त करना चाहता हूं और मैं आशा करता हूं कि मेरी बात सही होगी। मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि दुनिया के कितने देशों को मडिल ईस्ट की पोलटिक्स में इंटरस्ट है और Change of the Government in this country has displeased a number of Governments in the world. नई सरकार आई और नई सरकार के रिश्ते पूरी दुनिया के साथ, खासकर मडिल ईस्ट के इस्लामिक देशों के साथ काफी अच्छे रहे हैं। मैं यह भी कहना चाहता हूं कि यूएन के जिन ६० अधिकारियों को सैलेक्ट किया गया, उनका बैकग्राउंड एफलियेशन इसलिए नहीं दिया जा रहा है क्योंकि दुनिया की कितनी शक्तियों के साथ वे एफलियेटेड हो सकते हैं और ऐसी चीजों को वे डीस्टैबिलाइज़ करना चाहती होंगी।

महोदय, ऐसा मैं मानता हूं और बताना चाहता हूं कि किसलिए नाम आया है?…( व्यवधान)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please do not disturb.

… (Interruptions)

श्री मधुसूदन मिस्त्री : àÉé VÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä +ÉSUÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉ ®cÉ cè* àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE xÉÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä +ÉÉiÉä cé* àÉé ªÉc £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE <Æ]®xÉä¶ÉxÉãÉ <Æ]äãÉÉÒVÉåºÉ AVÉåºÉÉÒ, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ càÉä¶ÉÉ cÉÒ ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä nä¶ÉÉå BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ iÉÉããÉÖBÉE ®cä cé +ÉÉè® VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE cé iÉlÉÉ <ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉä bÉÒ-º]ä¤ãÉÉ<WÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊàÉÉÊbãÉ <Ǻ] nä¶ÉÉå ´É <ºãÉÉÉÊàÉBÉE ´ÉãbÇ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ càÉÉ®ä BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉƤÉÆvÉ xÉ ®cä, <ºÉ ´ÉVÉc ºÉä ªÉä xÉÉàÉ <ºÉBÉEä +ÉÆn® bÉãÉä MÉA cé, ÉÊVɺɺÉä ÉÊBÉE <xÉ xÉÉàÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ´ÉVÉc ºÉä {ÉÚ®ÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ¤ÉnãÉ VÉÉA* BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉä ¤ÉnxÉÉàÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* ªÉcÉÆ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä <xÉBÉEÉ <Æ]®äº] VÉÖ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉ ´ÉVÉc ºÉä ªÉä xÉÉàÉ <ºÉBÉEä +ÉÆn® bÉãÉä MÉA cé, AäºÉÉ àÉé àÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ*

<ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉ ABÉEnàÉ ºÉä ÉÊ®º{ÉÉåºÉ BÉDªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ? càÉxÉä BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ ¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç +ÉÉè® nä¶É BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä iÉlªÉ ®JÉä* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå VÉÉä UÉxɤÉÉÒxÉ SÉãÉ ®cÉÒ cè +ÉÉè® ¤ÉÉn àÉå ºÉcÉÒ iÉlªÉ càÉÉ®ä ºÉÉàÉxÉä +ÉÉAÆMÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ªÉc ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ =~ ®cÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ºÉàÉÉSÉÉ® {ÉjÉÉå xÉä ÉÊãÉJÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ºÉ{ÉEÉ<Ç näxÉä BÉEÉ ABÉE £ÉÉÒ àÉÉèBÉEÉ {ÉEÉ®äxÉ ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]® BÉEÉä +ÉÉè® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉä BÉDªÉÉå xÉcÉÓ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ? ºÉàÉÉSÉÉ® {ÉjÉÉå àÉå ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ º{É­] cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® ABÉE àÉÉèBÉEÉ £ÉÉÒ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cÉäiÉÉ iÉÉä ¶ÉɪÉn ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç cè, =ºÉBÉEä VÉÉä iÉlªÉ cé, ´Éä +ÉãÉMÉ cÉäiÉä +ÉÉè® ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä ÉÊnJÉÉA MÉA cé, =ºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉä* <ºÉÉÊãÉA <ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉEÉÒ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ µÉEäÉÊbÉΤãÉ]ÉÒ BÉEÉ ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ càÉÉ®ä ºÉÉàÉxÉä JÉ½É cÉäiÉÉ cè* ´ÉèºÉä iÉÉä ªÉc ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç ªÉÚAxÉ Éʺɺ]àÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA iÉèªÉÉ® BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè* ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉE® ®cä cé, ªÉÚAxÉ BÉEä VÉÉä ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ VÉxÉ®ãÉ cé, =xÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå VªÉÉnÉ ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ ÉʵÉEÉÊ]ºÉÉ<VÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEÉä VÉ¤É ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ xÉä <Æ]®BªÉÚ àÉå {ÉÚUÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É ®äÉÊVÉMxÉä¶ÉxÉ nåMÉä iÉÉä =xcÉåxÉä ¤ãÉÆ]ãÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉé BÉEÉä<Ç ®äÉÊVÉMxÉä¶ÉxÉ näxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÚÆ* |ÉEÉÆºÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® £ÉÉÒ ÉÊb{ãÉÉäàÉä] BÉEÉ ªÉcÉÒ ÉÊ®ABÉD¶ÉxÉ +ÉɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉcãÉä VÉÉÆSÉ BÉE®ÉAÆMÉä +ÉÉè® ®äÉÊVÉMxÉä¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ®cä cé* ªÉcÉÆ iÉÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä {ÉcãÉä cÉÒ {ÉEÉì®äxÉ ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]® BÉEÉä {Én ºÉä c]É ÉÊnªÉÉ, iÉÉÉÊBÉE ºÉÉ®ÉÒ VÉÉÆSÉ +ÉSUÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä cÉä, AäºÉÉ <ÆiÉVÉÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè* ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ càÉ {É® nä¶ÉpÉäc BÉEÉ +ÉÉè® ®É­]Å BÉEä ÉÊciÉ BÉEÉä ¤ÉäSÉxÉä BÉEÉ <ãVÉÉàÉ ãÉMÉÉ ®cä cé* àÉé ó{É® <ãVÉÉàÉ ãÉMÉÉ ®cä cé, ÉÊVɺÉxÉä <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊãÉA º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ãɽÉ<Ç ãɽÉÒ*…( व्यवधान)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record.

(Interruptions) …*

*Not Recorded



श्री मधुसूदन मिस्त्री <ºÉ nä¶É àÉå VÉ¤É BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ãɽÉ<Ç ãɽ ®cÉÒ lÉÉÒ, iÉ¤É <xÉBÉEÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ VÉäãÉ àÉå lÉä, ´Éä ÉÊ¥ÉÉÊ]¶É ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉä ÉÊSÉÉÊ]Â~ªÉÉÆ ÉÊãÉJÉ BÉE® àÉÉ{ÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE® VÉäãÉ ºÉä UÚ] ®cä lÉä*…( व्यवधान) जब कांग्रेस पार्टी स्वतंत्रता की लड़ाई लड़ रही थी, ये लोग शाखा लगा रहे थे। ये हमसे राष्ट्र हित को बेचने की बात कर रहे हैं। बांग्लादेश आपने नहीं बनाया है। बांग्लादेश कांग्रेस पार्टी ने बनाया है।…( व्यवधान) कफन की बात आप रहने दो। आप कुछ करना नहीं चाहते हैं। आप आगे बढ़ना नहीं चाहते हैं। ऐसा मैं इसलिए कह रहा हूं क्योंकि राष्ट्र प्रेम आपकी अकेले की विरासत नहीं है।

17.19 hrs. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

इस देश में कांग्रेस पार्टी का उज्ज्वल इतिहास है। आप कांग्रेस पार्टी पर एक आरोप लगाकर कोई चमत्कार नहीं कर सकते हैं। सूरज के सामने कितने दीपक जलते हैं, लेकिन सूरज की रोशनी हमेशा सूरज की रोशनी होती है, यह आप अच्छी तरह से समझ लें। कांग्रेस पार्टी के ऊपर इल्जाम लगाने और किसी मंत्री पर हकीकत को जाने बगैर तथा इंक्वायरी की रिपोर्ट के बगैर संसद में डिस्कशन के लिए लाना आपके पोलटिकल मोटिव के अलावा दूसरा कोई मोटिव नहीं हो सकता है।

आप सिर्फ बदनाम करने की राजनीति, आप सिर्फ धकेलने की राजनीति, आप सिर्फ कम्युनल वॉयलेंस बनाने की राजनीति पर चल रहे हैं। उससे ऊपर नहीं उठना चाहते हैं। आपका वह स्थान निश्चित रहने वाला है और रहेगा, इस बात को आप लिख लीजिए। अब आप फिर यहां आने वाले नहीं हैं।

इन्हीं शब्दों के साथ मैं अपना बात समाप्त करता हूं।

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we decided that the voting will be at 6 o’clock, including the reply. But still I have got about 12-13 names.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): You have still got 13 names!

MR. SPEAKER: Excluding yours.

If I want to give chance to all parties, I will first call those whom I have not called so far and then I will call the Minister. Then, probably we will finish the debate at 6.30 p.m.




+ÉÉVÉ nä¶É BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä +ÉÉàÉ ºÉàɺªÉÉ cè, VÉÉä VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉÒ V´ÉãÉxiÉ ºÉàɺªÉÉAÆ cé, =xÉBÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE vªÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* nä¶É BÉEä VÉÉä BÉE®Éä½Éå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉ cé, =xcå JÉÉn, ¤ÉÉÒVÉ +ÉÉè® {ÉÉxÉÉÒ ={ÉãɤvÉ BÉE®ÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ cè, nä¶É àÉå {ÉäªÉVÉãÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ cè, ¤Éä®ÉäVÉMÉÉ® xÉÉèVÉ´ÉÉxÉÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä {ÉEÉèVÉ nä¶É àÉå JɽÉÒ cÖ<Ç cè, =xÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ {É® SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉ <xÉ ºÉàɺªÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä ºÉàÉÉvÉÉxÉ cäiÉÖ BÉEÉä<Ç SÉSÉÉÇ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ®cä cé* nä¶É àÉå nÉÊãÉiÉÉå BÉEä =i{ÉÉÒ½xÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, ÉʤÉVÉãÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, ¤ÉÉfà BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, ºÉÚJÉä BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, xÉBÉDºÉãÉÉ<] ºÉàɺªÉÉ, àÉÉÊcãÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä +ÉÉ®FÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, +ÉxÉÖ. VÉÉÉÊiɪÉÉå A´ÉÆ VÉxÉVÉÉÉÊiɪÉÉå iÉlÉÉ ÉÊ{ÉUbÉå BÉEä +ÉÉ®FÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, àÉcÆMÉÉ<Ç BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, +ɺ{ÉiÉÉãÉÉå àÉå n´ÉÉ A´ÉÆ bÉBÉD]® ={ÉãɤvÉ BÉE®ÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ ºÉàɺªÉÉ, SÉÖxÉÉ´É àÉå BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE ºÉÖvÉÉ® cÉäxÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* <xÉ iÉàÉÉàÉ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå {É® ºÉnxÉ àÉå ¤ÉcºÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉÒ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <xÉ {É® ¤ÉcºÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè*

àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé +ÉxiÉ àÉå VÉ°ô® BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ, VÉÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ àÉÚãÉ£ÉÚiÉ ºÉàɺªÉÉAÆ cé, V´ÉãÉxiÉ ºÉàɺªÉÉAÆ cé, =xÉBÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE vªÉÉxÉ xÉ näBÉE® ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉ ºÉàÉªÉ VÉɪÉÉ BÉE® ®cä cé* =xÉBÉEÉ ®ÉäãÉ BÉEƺ]ÅÉÎBÉD]´É xÉ cÉäBÉE® bèº]ÅÉÎBÉD]´É cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé +ÉÉè® càÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉcÖVÉxÉ ºÉàÉÉVÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ uÉ®É ºÉnxÉ àÉå ãÉÉA MÉA ºlÉMÉxÉ-|ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®iÉÉÒ cè*

श्री अनंत गंगाराम गीते : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, àÉé BÉEɪÉÇ-ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEä ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA KÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cÚÆ* BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä gÉÉÒ {É´ÉxÉ BÉÖEàÉÉ® ¤ÉƺÉãÉ, àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉÉäãÉ ®cä lÉä* VÉ¤É gÉÉÒ ¤ÉƺÉãÉ xÉä ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉÉ +ÉÉ®à£É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ iÉ¤É =xcÉåxÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ÉʴɶÉä­É VÉÉä® ÉÊnªÉÉ +ÉÉè® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ =xcÉåxÉä ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ¶ÉɪÉn àÉÖZÉä ªÉc {ÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ +ÉÉè® xÉ ¶ÉɪÉn +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä cÉÒ <ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉEÉä ¤É®É¤É® {ÉfÃÉ cÉäMÉÉ +ÉÉè® ªÉc BÉEciÉä cÖA =xcÉåxÉä ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉEä {ÉÉÆSÉ ´ÉÉìãªÉÚàÉ cé, ÉÊVÉxÉàÉå ºÉä 4 ´ÉÉìãªÉÚàÉ àÉå BÉÖEU xÉcÉÓ cè +ÉÉè® 5´Éå ´ÉÉìãªÉÚàÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ABÉE ]ä¤ÉãÉ àÉå càÉÉ®ä nä¶É BÉEä nÉä xÉÉàÉ cé ÉÊVÉxÉàÉå ABÉE {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉ +ÉÉè® ABÉE xÉäiÉÉ BÉEÉ cè* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä VÉÉä BÉEcÉ àÉé =ºÉä cÉÒ nÉäc®É ®cÉ cÚÆ, àÉé BÉÖEU xɪÉÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ* …( व्यवधान) एक पार्टी और एक व्यक्ति का नाम है।

अध्यक्ष जी, मैं सिर्फ इतना ही जानना चाहूंगा कि जिस संदर्भ में नाम आया है वह संदर्भ हमारे देश के लिए या कांग्रेस पार्टी के लिए क्या कोई सम्मान की बात है? जिस संदर्भ में वह नाम आया, आपने सिर्फ इतना ही कहा कि टेबल में सिर्फ दो नाम आए। …( व्यवधान)

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : इसे लेकर यह उत्तेजना उत्पन्न हुई और उसके लिए मैंने जिक्र किया था, मोहन सिंह जी ने जिक्र किया था कि पंडित नेहरू जी ने इस हाउस में खड़े होकर किसी तरह के भ्रष्टाचार के सामने उसके खिलाफ ऐक्शन लेने की बात कही थी। उस हद तक वह ठीक है, लेकिन आज यहां देखने को यह मिल रहा है, उस बात को बोलते हुए तथ्य क्या हैं, किसी ने एक लाइन कह दी और उसे पकड़ कर आप बोलते जा रहे हैं।…( व्यवधान)

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : उन्होंने यह कहा था कि आपको सस्पैंड कर दिया, निकाल दिया लेकिन यहां तो पूरी पार्टी है। सारी पार्टी को कहां से निकाल देते? …( व्यवधान)

श्री पवन कुमार बंसल : àÉé <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ {É® +É{ÉEºÉÉäºÉ |ÉBÉE] BÉE® ®cÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊàÉãÉ BÉE® ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉE®iÉä lÉä* +ÉÉVÉ +ÉMÉ® BÉEÉä<Ç ABÉE ãÉÉ<xÉ ABÉE +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ BÉEÉä nä näMÉÉ iÉÉä ´Éc +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ AVÉåbÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ* +É¤É +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä ªÉc ¶ÉÖ°ô cÉä MɪÉÉ cè* {ÉcãÉä AäºÉÉ xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ*…( व्यवधान)

श्री अनंत गंगाराम गीते : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, ªÉcÉÆ {É® ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ xÉäc°ô VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE cÖ+ÉÉ iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® càÉ <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉcåMÉä +ÉÉè® nä¶É £ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉcäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä xÉäc°ô VÉÉÒ BÉEä ºÉàÉªÉ àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ lÉÉÒ, BÉDªÉÉ ´Éc BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ +ÉÉVÉ cè? BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉ{É =xÉ xÉÉÒÉÊiɪÉÉå {É® SÉãÉ ®cä cé? …( व्यवधान)

श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रकाश गोयल (हापुड़) : cÉÆ, SÉãÉ ®cä cé* …( व्यवधान)

श्री अनंत गंगाराम गीते : +ÉÉ{É lÉÉä½É ZÉÉÆBÉE BÉE® näJÉ ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ UÉÊ´É BÉDªÉÉ cè? …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय: आपने जो पूछा है, उसका जवाब दे दिया है।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री अनंत गंगाराम गीते : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, àÉé <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE ªÉcÉÆ <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE càÉ ºÉÉ®ä ªÉcÉÆ ´ÉÉäãBÉE® ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç {É® ¤ÉcºÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ®cä cé* ´Éc ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç +ÉÉVÉ BÉEÉÒ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä <ºÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* =ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç {É® ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE® ®cä cé, +ÉÉVÉ ªÉcÉÆ VÉÉä BÉEɪÉÇ ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É cè =ºÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä càÉ VÉÉä SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE® ®cä cé, ´Éc ´ÉÉäãBÉE® ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç {É® SÉSÉÉÇ xÉcÉÓ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* ´Éc +ÉÉVÉ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ cè, SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ cè VÉÉä ¤ÉƺÉãÉ VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE ABÉE ´ÉÉìãªÉÚàÉ BÉEÉÒ ]ä¤ÉãÉ àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEä ABÉE xÉäiÉÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ cè, ´Éc SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ cè* ´Éc nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ cè <ºÉÉÊãÉA =ºÉ {É® +ÉÉVÉ ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉcºÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is being taken away. You have only five minutes. Do not get upset.

श्री अनंत गंगाराम गीते : àÉé {ÉÉÆSÉ ÉÊàÉxÉ] àÉå JÉiàÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ* VÉ¤É {ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå àÉå ªÉä ºÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉå +ÉÉ<ÇÆ +ÉÉè® =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ VÉ¤É càÉÉ®ä ÉÊ´Énä¶É àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ =ºÉàÉå +ÉɪÉÉ, BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ +ÉɪÉÉ* ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå àÉå ªÉä Jɤɮå +ÉÉ<ÇÆ, ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ àÉå iÉäãÉ BÉEä ¤ÉnãÉä +ÉxÉÉVÉ BÉEä ºÉÉ®ä BÉEÉ®Éä¤ÉÉ® àÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ABÉE àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉä BÉÖEU ãÉÉ£É ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cè ªÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉä =ºÉºÉä BÉÖEU ãÉÉ£É ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cè, <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ VÉ¤É Jɤɮå +ÉÉ<ÇÆ iÉÉä nںɮä cÉÒ ÉÊnxÉ nä¶É BÉEä ºÉÉ®ä +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå àÉå ªÉc cèb ãÉÉ<ÇxÉ lÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ä |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä xÉ]´É® VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä BÉDãÉÉÒxÉ ÉÊSÉ] nÉÒ cè, =xÉBÉEÉ <ºÉºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉƤÉÆvÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* ºÉÉ®ä nä¶É xÉä <ºÉ Jɤɮ BÉEÉä {ÉfÃÉ cè* c® +ÉJɤÉÉ® àÉå ªÉä Jɤɮå +ÉÉ<Ç lÉÉÓ* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn ÉÊ´Énä¶É àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä =xÉBÉEä {Én ºÉä c]ɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ, =xcå ÉʤÉxÉÉ BÉEÉàÉ-BÉEÉVÉ BÉEÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ* =xcå BÉDãÉÉÒxÉ ÉÊSÉ] nÉÒ +ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEÉ ªÉÉÊn =ºÉºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉƤÉÆvÉ xÉcÉÓ cè iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® =xcå =xÉBÉEä {Én ºÉä c]ɪÉÉ BÉDªÉÉå MɪÉÉ, =xÉBÉEä cÉlÉ ºÉä ´Éc ÉÊb{ÉÉ]ÇàÉå] BÉDªÉÉå ãÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ, =xcå ÉʤÉxÉÉ BÉEÉàÉ-BÉEÉVÉ BÉEÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉDªÉÉå ¤ÉxÉÉA ®JÉÉ MɪÉÉ? जब यह चर्चा बाहर हो रही थी तब नटवर जी बार-बार बयान दे रहे थे। इससे हमारा कोई वास्ता नहीं है, यह गलत है। मैं किसी भी हालत में इस्तीफा नहीं दूंगा, मैं अपने पद को नहीं छोडूंगा। लेकिन अंत में उन्हें बिना विभाग का मंत्री बनाकर रखा गया है। अब जो जांच कमेटी बनायी गई है, उसके दायरे में यह सारी बातें आएंगी। हम सरकार पर भरोसा करते हैं, विश्वास करते हैं कि सरकार की मानसिकता बिलकुल अच्छी है। सरकार वास्तविकता को देश के सामने रखना चाहती है। हम चाहेंगे कि वास्तविकता इस सदन और देश की जनता के सामने कमेटी के माध्यम से आए।

श्रीमती मेनका गांधी ने जो एक बात कही उस पर काफी हंगामा यहां पर हुआ। मैं इस सदन में पिछली चार बार से चुनकर आ रहा हूं। मैं श्री अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी के नेतृत्व वाली सरकार में मंत्री भी रहा हूं। उस समय इराक की जो स्थिति थी और हमारे देश के सामने जो स्थिति थी, श्री राम नाइक ने यह पहल की और हमने इराक से तेल खरीदने की बात कही, उसमें तेल के बदले अनाज देने की बात हुई थी। उस समय हमारे देश में सरप्लस अनाज था। देश के सामने वह चिन्ता का विषय था। उस सरप्लस अनाज का हम क्या करते? हजारों और लाखों टन अनाज देश में था और उसे हम समुद्र में फेंक रहे थे। इसलिए वह देश के हित में था और विदेशी मुद्रा को बचाने की आवश्यकता थी। हम उस समय के प्रधानमंत्री श्री अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी को धन्यवाद देंगे, जिन्होंने इतना विदेशी मुद्रा भण्डार बनाए रखा, जिसका आनन्द आज के वित्त मंत्री उठा रहे हैं। उस समय तेल के बदले अनाज का सौदा हुआ था, क्योंकि उस समय इराक संकट में था। जो सौदा हुआ था, उस सौदे के संदर्भ में कांग्रेस के एक नेता और मंत्री का नाम आया है, पार्टी का नाम आया है। यह केवल पार्टी के लिए ही नहीं, देश के लिए भी चिन्ता का विषय है। हमारे राष्ट्र के लिए यह शर्म की बात है। इसी के साथ मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करता हूं।

MR. SPEAKER: Now, I call upon Shri C.K. Chandrappan to speak. Please conclude within five minutes.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN (TRICHUR): Sir, I am given a special warning.

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all. A lot of discussion has taken place.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Sir, I stand here to oppose the Motion moved by Shri L.K. Advani.

While initiating the discussion, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to lionise the Report of Volcker. He said that it is an international committee, independent committee, and it is also done with the consent of the United Nations. So, it gives an impression that what Volcker said in that Report is something like a Gospel’s truth or something like Gita that we should do pooja. So much has appeared in the Press. If you go through that, it does not give that impression. It is a biased Report. Let us be very clear about it. The Report accuses those who took an anti-imperialist position consistently. The Report turns a Nelson’s eye towards the trans-national companies who were doing most of the business. There is no word about them. It accused the South African National Congress along with what they call Congress, India.

Shri Advani asked whether any communist is here in the House because he found the names of some communist parties there. But I must say that India has done utmost fairness to this Report because we have appointed a judicial probe into it. It is a kind of a judicial inquiry. … (Interruptions)

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM : It is not a kind of a judiciary inquiry. It is a judicial inquiry.… (Interruptions)

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : It is a judicial inquiry to look into the allegations about Shri Natwar Singh and about the Congress Party. I do not think many countries have done so.

The present Foreign Minister, Mr. Sergei Lavrov of the Russian Government —I am not speaking of the Soviet Government—accused the Paul Volcker Committee of basing its conclusions on false evidence. That is how they said. Part of the information Moscow received from the Volcker Committee they said, was not backed by documented evidence. These are reflections made by the Russian Government on Volcker Committee. You were so gleefully happy that the name of the Russian Communist Party’s leader was mentioned there. They said it was based on concocted documents. However, the Head of the Presidential Administration, Voloshin of Russia was accused. The Russian Government say that his signature was false. His signature is known. He is a very important functionary of the State. They say that it was on false signature that the allegation was made. So, this is about the Volcker Committee Report.

Now, coming to India, Advani said that when he was the Deputy Prime Minister he had asked his Minister, I think, he was referring to Mr. Ram Naik and said that the Indian Oil Company did not have the lure of money offered by Iraq. Well, probably that is a very clever move. The Indian Public Sector Company did not have any unfair deal. But when Naik was asked why he was there in Iraq, he was saying that he was leading a business delegation. He was leading a large Indian delegation of businessmen to Iraq in July, 2002. When he gave Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s letter to Mr. Saddam Hussein and was offered oil coupons for Indian Oil by Iraqi President himself, Mr. Naik said he did not want that. But did he allow the others to do business?

When he was asked specifically what about those industrial houses or companies which he took with him, he said it was his business to promote their interests, their business with that country. When he allowed them to do business, did he receive any commission? That was the question the Pressmen asked. He said, “That is an allegation.” I have a request to the Government that that allegation also should be looked into. Yes, you should look into the allegation whether Mr. Natwar Singh is involved. You should look into the allegation whether the Congress Party is involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Please conclude.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Sir, I am concluding.

But you should also look into the allegation which Mr. Ram Naik said “that it is an allegation”. That has also to be looked into. Then we will get a complete picture as to who were all involved in this. I said that we had done fairness to the Report because we are, perhaps, the only Government in the world that has taken the step to look into the allegations made against responsible people and Parties in our country. But if we have to discuss this Report, maybe after we get the Report of the inquiry–probably, the Chair may permit to discuss the Volcker Committee Report here–then we can say how the American imperialists are trying to use the United Nations in the most unethical fashion against the countries who are taking an independent foreign policy, an independent position in relation to the US imperialists.

Sir, I would request you to give me one or two minutes. I think, you will allow me to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: One minute for last sentence only which should be middle sized; not too long.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Okay Sir. The thing is that in the name of fighting communism, in the name of containing communism, in the last part of the 20th Century, we have seen US imperialism running roughshod over the world. Now, in the name of fighting terrorism, they did attack Afghanistan under UN flag. But when they attacked Iraq, no UN flag was given to them. They did attack Iraq with their own forces supported by NATO.

Sir, it is their occupation Government now in Iraq. Mr. Advani said that all the records were intact because that building of oil Ministry was not bombed. The whole documents were placed before Volcker Committee. Who placed those documents? Is there any democratic Government sitting there in Iraq to give the documents? It is the American occupation forces who occupied that country, occupied that Ministry, received the records and placed it before Volcker. It is not an independent Government of that Country; a sovereign Government of that Country who placed the records. Let us not put so much faith in Volcker who stands denounced in front of the countries of the world. We are doing enquiry because we want a little more justice to be done to our own democrate institutions and people. That is why we have set up an inquiry into this. Sir, I oppose this Motion. I think that the inquiry should be done properly and after that we should have a discussion on this here in Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Harin Pathak. You have five minutes only.

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : I will try to be brief.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure because you are such an astute parliamentarian.

श्री हरिन पाठक : +ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, càÉÉ®ÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ A´ÉÆ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä +ÉÉVÉ ºÉÖ¤Éc VÉÉä ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉxÉÖàÉÉänxÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA àÉè +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉxÉÖàÉÉÊiÉ ºÉä JÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cÚÆ* |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ MÉÆ£ÉÉÒ® cè* <ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ ´ÉºiÉÖ BÉEä +ÉÆn® VÉÉxÉÉ =ÉÊSÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ABÉE BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¤Éè~ɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* àÉMÉ® àÉÖZÉä nÖJÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå BÉEcxÉÉ {ɽ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ BÉEä 58 ºÉÉãÉÉå BÉEä <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ àÉå {ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® càÉÉ®ä nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE nãÉ {É® VÉÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå cè, =ºÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE nãÉÉãÉÉÒ JÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ +ÉÉ®Éä{É nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå ãÉMÉÉ cè, VÉÉä <ºÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç àÉå ãÉMÉÉ cè* ªÉc nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¶ÉàÉÇ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* 58 ºÉÉãÉ BÉEÉÒ <ºÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE ªÉÉjÉÉ àÉå BÉE<Ç ºÉ®BÉEÉ®å +ÉÉ<ÇÆ +ÉÉè® BÉE<Ç MɪÉÉÓ* BÉE<Ç +ÉÉ®Éä{É ãÉMÉä +ÉÉè® BÉE<Ç +ÉÉ®Éä{ÉÉå BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå =ºÉBÉEÉÒ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉEÉÒ MɪÉÉÒ àÉMÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ´Éc £ÉÉÒ ªÉÖxÉÉ<]äb xÉè¶ÉÆºÉ ºÉä VÉÖ½ÉÒ cÖ<Ç ºÉƺlÉÉ BÉEä VÉÉÊ®ªÉä BÉEÉÒ MɪÉÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç {É® +ÉMÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE nãÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå £ÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE nãÉ àÉå ¤Éè~ä cÖA ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEä ABÉE àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE +ÉÆMÉÖãÉÉÒ ÉÊxÉnæ¶É cÖ<Ç cè, iÉÉä BÉDªÉÉ <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA, càÉ ºÉ¤ÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¶ÉàÉÇ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ? …( व्यवधान) क्या इस देश की जनता जानना नहीं चाहती कि …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बैठ जाइये। हम लोगों को डिबेट खत्म करनी है। आप क्या कर रहे हैं ?

…( व्यवधान)

श्री हरिन पाठक : अध्यक्ष महोदय, पूरा देश जानना चाहता है। …( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : इतना टाइम नहीं है।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री हरिन पाठक : देश के अंदर जब कोई छोटी-मोटी घटनाएं होती हैं तब उस रिपोर्ट के बारे में देश के सामने चर्चाएं होती हैं ।मगर यहां पर जो चार शब्द, जो सदन के सामने बार-बार अंग्रेजी में और हिन्दी में कहे गये, ” अनाज के बदले तेल ” लेकिन मैं कहता हूं ” तेल के बदले अनाज” । इन चार शब्दों के बीच देश की इज्जत दांव पर लगी है। वोल्कर कमेटी जो बनाई गई,…( व्यवधान) १९९० से जब से इराक ने कुवैत पर आक्रमण किया, मैं उसकी गहराई में नहीं जाना चाहता लेकिन मोहन सिंह जी ने और मेनका जी ने जो विषय सदन के सामने रखा है, उसी को आगे बढ़ाते हुए मैं सरकार से अनुरोध करना चाहता हूं कि देश की प्रतिष्ठा से जुड़े हुए आरोपों को इतने सामान्य तरीके से और इतनी आसानी से नहीं लीजिए। यह सवाल किसी पार्टी का नहीं है, किसी व्यक्ति का नहीं है। मुझे बड़ा दुख हुआ जब हमारे मंत्री और मेरे मित्र श्री प्रियरंजन दास मुंशी जी ने इसे तर्क में उलझाने की कोशिश की लेकिन वह उसमें खुद फंस गये। हमारे कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी के नेता श्री रुपचंद पाल जी ने यह बताने की कोशिश की। हर कोई इससे सहमत है कि उस समय इराक में जो स्थिति हुई थी, मानवीयता के आधार पर मदद करनी चाहिए थी। कुछ लोगों ने यह भी जस्टिफाइ करने की कोशिश की कि जो यह सरचार्ज लिया गया, उसमें क्या गलत बात है ? अगर कहीं गरीबों को अनाज दिया गया या दवाई भेज दी गई क्योंकि वहां पर कत्लेआम हुआ था तो देना चाहिए था। आपने कहा कि ठीक किया। लेकिन इन दो बातों को अलग-अलग करना पड़ेगा। सरचार्ज देना, सरचार्ज लेकर यहां से अनाज भेजना, वहां से तेल खरीदना और उसके बदले में कमीशन खाकर देश में पैसा हड़पना– यह सबसे ज्यादा खतरनाक बात है। उसी पर हम आज चर्चा करना चाहते हैं। मानवीयता के आधार पर आपने दवाई भेजी, अनाज दिया और उसके बदले में जो पैसा आया, वह कंपनियों ने चाहे कैसे भी लिया हो, किसी व्यक्ति या पार्टी ने लिया हो, मैं समझता हूं इसके लिए आने वाली पीढियां न कांग्रेस पार्टी को माफ करेंगी और अगर यह सही निकला तो नटवर सिंह जी को भी माफ नहीं करेंगी। सिर्फ उनके इस्तीफे से यह मामला नहीं रुकता है। अगर वोल्कर कमेटी तक ही आप सीमित रखना चाहते हैं तो मैं सिर्फ इसमें एक रेफरेंस देकर अपनी बात रखूंगा। टेबिल नं. ३,९,१०,११ तथा १२ का सरकार पूरे तरीके से अध्ययन करे। टेबल नं. ३ में स्पष्ट रूप से नटवर सिंह जी का नाम है। टेबल नं. ३ में स्पष्ट रूप से कांग्रेस पार्टी का नाम है। व्यक्ति के सवाल पर मैं नहीं जाना चाहता हूं। जार्ज साहब बोल रहे थे, व्यक्ति की बात कर रहे थे। मैं सीधी बात, जो वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट में है, टेबल नं. ३ में कांग्रेस पार्टी का नाम है:

Mr. Singh is shown in Table III of the Report as a non-contractual beneficiary in connection with four million barrels of oil allotted to Masefield AG, the contracting company which actually lifted 1.936 million barrels. Out of this, the phases in which oil was allocated is shown as Table IX. The Congress party is also listed in the same Table III as non-contractual beneficiary in connection with four million barrels allotted in phases 10, 11, 12 and 13. Out of this allocation, 1.001 million barrels were lifted in this case by Masefield AG, shown as contracting company in phase 10.

मैं यह इसलिए कहना चाहता हूं कि जब तुलना की जा रही थी, दासमुंशी जी कर रहे थे तो उन्होंने शुरूआत आदरणीय आडवाणी जी की प्रशंसा से की। मैं समझा कि आगे अच्छी बात कहेंगे कि अब हम नटवर सिंह जी को यहां से निकालेंगे लेकिन तुलना करते-करते वह खुद उलझ गये। तुलना आपने वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट और तहलका की करी और शुरूआत आडवाणी जी से की। जब आडवाणी जी का नाम आया सिर्फ जैन डायरी में आया, उन्होंने एक भी दिन की देर नहीं लगाई। उसी दिन पब्लिक लाइफ से तब तक के लिए निकल जाना तय कर लिया जब तक कि पुन: चुनाव जीतकर न आएं और जब तक न्यायमूर्तियों द्वारा उनको इस केस से क्लियर न किया गया। लेकिन यहां पूरे १७ दिनों तक कांग्रेस पार्टी की ओर से कोई प्रतक्रिया नहीं आई। For 17 days there was no response from the Congress Party. As Advaniji has rightly pointed out and stated in his opening remarks, it was the flip-flop response from the Congress Party at that time? He said the report is . …… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER : Do not use that expression. That expression need not be used.

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : That was the report.

MR. SPEAKER : The Minister said certain things.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER : Do not write that word. Shri Harin Pathak, you need not repeat that.


MR. SPEAKER : Two more speakers of your Party are there to speak. Please conclude.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER : Please address to me.

(Interruptions) *

MR. SPEAKER : That is not recorded. You ignore them.


श्री हरिन पाठक : àÉÖZÉä +ÉcàÉnɤÉÉn BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ xÉä £ÉÉ®ÉÒ àÉiÉÉå ºÉä SÉÖxÉÉ´É àÉå ÉÊVÉiÉÉBÉE® £ÉäVÉÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä àÉÖZÉ {É® =ÆMÉãÉÉÒ =~ÉxÉä ºÉä {ÉcãÉä ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER : I will call the next speaker if you do not conclude.

*Not Recorded.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER : That is not to be recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

श्री हरिन पाठक : àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé ÉÊ´ÉkÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ vªÉÉxÉ +ÉÉBÉEÉÌ­ÉiÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ* The Enforcement Directorate has questioned two partners of the controversial firm Hamdan Exports – Andy Sehgal and Vikas Dar in connection with Iraq Oil for Food scam. Is it true? Secondly, there are links which have already been established, you could inquire and you can reply on that when you give reply to the debate, that the calls were made to Jagat and Andy Sehgal of Hamdan Export which is fairly established.

महोदय, वे नम्बर देना चाहता हूँ जिनसे ये सारी काल्स की गयी थीं। That number is 98100 08661. The address is C-180, first floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Calls and SMSs were made till late night. … (Interruptions) I am concluding. On these days, after the Volcker report was released on 28th October, Jamil sent a SMS message and phoned on the same day at night to Jordan. The number is 00962777275665 and the other call was made to London number 00447968444999. Then he telephoned to Jagat. The telephone number which is held by Jagat is 98710 89116. These calls were made from Jamil to Jagat.

इसमें आपके तीन MoS के भी नाम हैं। मैं यह जानना चाहता हूँ कि इतनी सारी काल्स २८ तारीख की रात को क्यों की जा रही थीं? क्या किसी फिल्म की चर्चा हो रही थी या दिल्ली के तापमान की चर्चा हो रही थी। मैं आपके माध्यम से कहना चाहता हूँ कि ये सभी बातें देश के सामने आनी चाहिए। इसमें १३० कंपनियों के नाम हैं। श्री राम नाइक जी अपने कार्यकाल में इराक गए थे, लेकिन रिपोर्ट में कहीं पर भी भारतीय जनता पार्टी और एनडीए के किसी भी घटक दल का नाम नहीं है। न व्यक्ति का है न पार्टी का है, जिन कम्पनीज ने अगर यह सरचार्ज लिया है, उसकी पूरी-पूरी इंवैस्टीगेशन करानी चाहिए। मैं बताना चाहूंगा कि १३० कम्पनीज में से ४६ कम्पनीज ऐसी हैं, जो चाय सप्लाई करती हैं। चाय सप्लाई कराने वाले लोगों को भी कांट्रेक्ट दिया गया था।

* Not Recorded.

This is something horrible and shameful for the nation. So, I demand removal of Shri Natwar Singh from the Council of Ministers and that a top level inquiry, in addition to Justice Pathak Inquiry, may be made with reference to Volcker Committee Report.

MR. SPEAKER: Dr. M. Jagannath, your party has got only two minutes. I will give you four minutes.

DR. M. JAGANNATH : Thank you. Respected Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Adjournment Motion. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, there were so many difficulties for the country in general and for the human beings in particular in Iraq. Reports had started appearing that millions of people were dying of malnutrition and UNICEF also came out with the report that if something was not done, the country was heading towards a disaster. That paved the way for putting Oil for Food Programme in place.

The Volcker Committee Report has made it very clear and exposed how the Congress Party and some of its leaders behaved in an inhuman manner for the programmes which were made for the welfare of the human beings. Sir, the contracts which were awarded, they were totally in contravention of the guidelines suggested by the United Nations and there were allegations of corruption in awarding contracts, and money generated from sale of oil under Oil for Food Programme has been diverted for other purposes. Nearly 130 companies from India had contravened the United Nations’ guidelines and got illegal gratification and illegal money.

Coming to the question of the role of Shri Natwar Singh, the former Minister of External Affairs and now the Minister without portfolio and the Congress, they have been listed in the recently released Volcker Committee Report as non-contractual beneficiaries under Iraq’s Oil for Food Programme. The contracting company was Masefield AG. I would like to know the relationship between the Masefield AG and Shri Natwar Singh and also the Congress Party. This was very clearly mentioned in Table III of the Report and also that four billion barrels of oil was allotted to Masefield AG and was lifted. This has been made very clear.

If Shri Natwar Singh and the Congress Party are very clear that they have to be given a clean chit, what was the necessity of, first of all, relieving Shri Natwar Singh of his portfolio of External Affairs? Secondly, what was the necessity of instituting a Commission of Inquiry to go into all the aspects? If, according to their contention, they are very clean, what was the necessity of going through these procedures? It is because the Volcker Committee Report has thoroughly exposed the Congress Party and its access to foreign money in Oil for Food Programme and this has given an opportunity to the foreign Governments and agencies to interfere in the internal affairs of the country. This is a very dangerous trend.

On behalf of the Telugu Desam Party, we strongly condemn the Congress Party and its leaders for compromising the interests of the country for their monetary gains. Telugu Desam Party also condemns the UPA Government’s efforts to cover up the serious crime of the Congress Party and its leaders by ordering a Commission of Inquiry which does not have any sanctity under the Commission of Inquiry Act. What for has this Commission been constituted? It has been constituted only for an eye-wash and to save the culprits. This is the only idea behind setting it.

18.00 hrs.

Finally, because there are a number of companies involved, because a big national party which is ruling the country is involved, and also because some of the Left parties are involved … (Interruptions)

SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : What Left parties are involved? … (Interruptions)

DR. M. JAGANNATH : In the morning hon. Advaniji mentioned it.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Dr. Jagannath, you have not followed him. He said ‘some foreign Communist parties’.

DR. M. JAGANNATH : Yes, Sir, they are not from this country.

MR. SPEAKER: You make your point. I have already been very liberal with you.

DR. M. JAGANNATH : Since a number of companies are involved and there is a lot of money involved in illegal transactions, on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party I demand that the entire case should be handed over to the CBI so that an impartial inquiry could be conducted and necessary action can be taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Prof. Ramadass, you have got three minutes but I will allow you four minutes.

PROF. M. RAMADASS (PONDICHERRY): Please give me eight minutes, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry. No bargains with the Chair. Carry on.

PROF. M. RAMADASS : Hon. Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the Adjournment Motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, both its content as well as the arguments advanced by the BJP and its allies. The Motion says that there is a failure on the part of the Government to take action and that the Government is trying to cover up certain issues. I fully refute both these allegations of the Adjournment Motion.

If the Government has to take any action, there should be documentary evidence, there should be prima facie evidence, and there should be some iota of evidence to show that there is some involvement of somebody, some Minister, or some Party. In this case, there is none of this. Therefore, no Government in the world can take any action on the basis of some kind of a casual reference that is made.

The Volcker Committee Report, on the basis of which they are making these allegations, is spread over 630 pages. In none of those pages there is a mention of either Mr. Natwar Singh or the Congress Party. There is Table-III in which there is a one-line mention that they are non-contractual beneficiaries. How can anybody take action on the basis of that casual reference? Can any Government take action on that basis without any conclusive evidence on the benefits received by anybody?

There are a number of contradictions in the Volcker Committee Report on the basis of which these allegations have been made. This Volcker Committee was intended to inquire into an economic aspect. It was intended to find out what transpired in the transactions between Iraq and other countries. It is about the purchase and sale of commodities. It is about business. How can anyone assume that a political party is doing the business? An individual can do business; a company can do business. How can a political party do business? It is only a figment of imagination on the part of BJP to say that the Congress party was involved in a business transaction and, therefore, it received kickbacks or it received bribes etc. Therefore, the very fact that it mentioned about a political party shows that this Report is not reliable and incongruous.

Not only that, the Volcker Committee Report itself says that mere mention of any company, or an individual, or a party is not a guarantee that that company, or the individual, or the party has authorised the payment. This is the exact sentence of the Volcker Committee Report. Identification of a particular company’s contract does not necessarily mean that the company either made such payment or authorised, or otherwise aware of it. That means, the Committee has concluded on unsure foundation.

It mentions a company but it does not say that the company has actually paid it or not, or authorised it or not. It also asks for detailed investigations. That means, the investigation that it has done and the conclusions that it has arrived at are not conclusive enough to come to any conclusion. That has been accepted by the Volcker Committee Report itself. How can we reach any conclusion on the basis of this kind of a report? Therefore, I would feel that the Volcker Committee Report is only a bunch of conjectures, hypothetical statements and mere probabilities. The methodology and procedures used by the Committee are faulty. It contains a lot of inconsistencies in the data used. The Committee says, “we certainly listed the information indicated from Iraqi records; we did not say what is right or wrong.” This is a very important point. The Committee says, “we have certainly listed information indicated from the Iraqi records but we did not say what is right or wrong; we only said what was there in the Iraqi records.” Whether there was denial, acceptance or if there was something in between, there are no answers to these questions. That means, the Committee has not passed any judgement that the Congress Party has done wrong or Shri Natwar Singh has done wrong. They have merely relied on the records. Where from these records have come? Did Volcker Committee visit the place, and then collected the information? None of the members of the Committee, including Mr. Volcker, visited Iraq and collected data from there. All the records were supplied to them by the forces which have occupied Iraq, on behalf of the USA. Any record which has been seized by a party cannot be taken as an evidence, according the minimum legal jurisprudence. The Opposition must know that the elementary international jurisprudence which says that no conclusion can be evidently drawn from a document which has been seized under invasion.

Therefore, I would feel that nobody should give any importance to the Volcker Committee Report. Many of the countries which have been indicted by this Committee have also disregarded it. One South African company has even launched a legal prosecution against Volcker Committee, and it says that the Committee has made untrue, reckless, irresponsible, highly damaging and derogatory statement in the report, and therefore, it has dismissed it. When all the countries in the world have done it, the Government of India has taken it very seriously, and it has gone deep into the matter and has instituted a Commission as per the law and the Commission of Inquiry Act. Therefore, we should wait for the veracity of this Report. We should wait for the findings of the Committee. I would urge upon the House to reject the Adjournment Motion lock, stock and barrel.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, let us continue till about 6.45 or 7.00 p.m. There are seven or eight Members. Please cooperate with the Chair.

Shri Uday Singh. You are very articulate. Hence, five minutes maximum is allotted to you.

SHRI UDAY SINGH: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will wrap up in five minutes.

I will go back to the beginning of this debate when our leader, the Leader of the Opposition made his opening remarks. To move forward from there, I would like to say that I was extremely impressed by the very expressive and very candid remark of Shrimati Sonia Gandhi at a Leadership Summit in Delhi recently when she went beyond the Volcker Report, and said that she was extremely worried at the present public perception which is prevailing of political parties and organisations being seedy and wily. I could not help but be extremely impressed by what she said. But when I see the action the Government has taken, the two things do not seem to be falling into place. Whether the Volcker Committee Report is true or false, only the authority appointed by the Government can find out. But it has given clear indications that there is a prima facie involvement of an individual’s name who was then the Foreign Minister, and also one of the largest political parties in India, known not only in India but known throughout the world. It has been the brunt of the Congress party’s argument that these are probably conspiracies hatched to bring a bad name to the Congress Party.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I begin to wonder as to what the reasons could be for the whole world to have somehow connived against the Congress Party, its leaders, both past and present. I am not going into the details. I am only making a very brief reference.

We have a book by Danial Patrick Moynihan who was not only a former Ambassador to India but was also a key policy-maker in Washington. We then have the book called the Mitrokhin Archives, which names the Congress Party and some of its leaders. We now have the Volcker Committee Report. Now for us to actually accept the fact that the whole world has connived against the Congress Party to bring it a bad name is stretching our imagination a bit too far.

With regard to the individual who was named, the hon. Minister Shri Dasmunsi was trying to explain to us how with great alacrity the Government has acted. I am not really impressed by his argument. The Government could have acted in a very simple manner. The individual named, who was holding a key portfolio in the Government, should have been politely, if he was not doing it on his own, asked by the Prime Minister to kindly step aside for the investigations to take place and he could have been brought back honourably. There have been instances like this. … (Interruptions) Now, if you disturb me, then I promise to do the same thing to you. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You do not have to take notice of him. You please address the Chair.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Your Minister will reply. There are other hon. members who will reply. Please do not go on with a running commentary.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI UDAY SINGH : I am trying to be as simple as possible. I do not know why they are getting excited.

Dr. Manmohan Singh is known for his integrity, an overall integrity not only in India but throughout the world. For him to have taken so long and then use some rocket science in divesting Shri Singh of his Foreign Affairs portfolio, baffles me. It is like we hear in satellite launchers that stage-I of the rocket has now been detached; stage-II has now been detached. What is this? What is this half way measure? He is either not at all guilty, in which case he should have remained the Foreign Minister; and if there was the slightest doubt, then he should not be a member of the Cabinet where he is privy to decisions, where he is privy to information which could have a direct bearing on the outcome or on the proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: Please conclude.

SHRI UDAY SINGH : I will just wrap up in a minute.

The Congress Party has been named as a beneficiary. I heard Mrs. Gandhi with great attention at that Summit. I would like to say this. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I will allow you to speak if your Party gives your name. So long you have not been chosen as a speaker, you have to keep quiet.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI UDAY SINGH : Shrimati Gandhi is the President of the Congress Party. She is the Chairperson of the UPA and, therefore, she either has to designate a person who will take the responsibility for the Congress Party or will have to take the responsibility herself. That is all we are asking for. Pent up emotions seem to be coming out in this House without reason. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure, they will consider your suggestion.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI UDAY SINGH : I am concluding in half a second. … (Interruptions)

श्री विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : अध्यक्ष महोदय, क्या सोनिया गांधी जी का नाम अनपार्लियामेंटरी है, नाम लेते ही सब खड़े हो जाते हैं। … ( ्व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : ठीक है। I have not ruled him out. She is an hon. Member of the House. We are entitled to have respect from each other.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI UDAY SINGH : I would, therefore, most respectfully submit for the consideration of this House that while in the case of an individual named, he must not be a member of the Cabinet and in case of the Congress Party, its President must take moral responsibility.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am most intrigued by the language of the Motion that has been brought before this House.

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : Hon. Speaker has approved it.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: Of course, he has approved it. But I can still be intrigued. I must intrigue, Sir, because I can understand our condemning the involvement of individuals, and I can understand our alleging the involvement of individuals. But I fail to understand how we can condemn an alleged involvement because until the involvement, which is alleged, is proved, there is nothing for us to condemn! And that is basically why this debate has wound from the morning till this evening in such a meandering fashion… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: It says, ‘ to take proper action.’

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : It is ‘failure to take proper action.’

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, ‘failure to take proper action.’

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: Sir, it begins by saying: “This House condemns the alleged involvement…”

SHRI HARIN PATHAK : No… (Interruptions)

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: Oh, I withdraw my remark, Sir… (Interruptions) I was looking at what was given to me earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: But you cannot get your minute back.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: Sir, I withdraw and I apologise to the House for having wasted its time with display of words.

MR. SPEKAER: Okay, it is all right.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: But the fact of the matter is that no one has as yet been established as having been involved. There is an allegation, and when there is an allegation, the proper course of action to take, is to secure the information, which would either confirm the allegation or which would result in the allegation being proved to be baseless. That action has been taken. If we were to take action on the basis of allegations but without proof, that would not be proper action; that would be improper action. The most important thing for us to establish is whether the individual and the party to which he belongs, which has been mentioned in the Report, have been mentioned in the Report either individually or together or with some kind of a connection between the two, on the basis of information available to Mr. Volcker, which has not been made available by Mr. Volcker to the rest of us.

Therefore, the single most senior person we could find in India today, who has experience of all the workings of the United Nations for an entire life time in the service of the United Nations, was rushed across to the United States of America. In a commendably short period of time, he has collected whatever documents are required. He has brought them back to India, and if we wish to be fair to the individuals involved rather than try to make capital out of the fact of an allegation, it would not take too long for us to examine that, and apply a judicial mind to the process.

So, the documents have been brought and a Body authorised to undertake an inquiry with exactly the same powers as what would have been vested in a Commission of Inquiry, has been set up. A deadline has been set about the amount of time, which it is supposed to spend on this, and instead of the kind of roving fishing expedition which this House has had to witness in its previous incarnation, we are having a determined effort to discover the facts on the basis of which alone proper action can be taken… (Interruptions)

AN. HON. MEMBER: They are afraid of action.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: I do not know, on the one hand, the Opposition is terribly keen that we discuss this, and when the subject is permitted by the Speaker to be discussed, for three days they want to have sound bites before a television camera instead of discussing the matter here. We then spend an entire day sitting here, listening to the Opposition one after the other, and one of the most distinguished Members of the Opposition, against whom I was supposed to be fielded by my party, has left me speechless because he was speechless; 50 minutes to say absolutely nothing.… (Interruptions) Oh, what a fall there was my countrymen. When I was a young officer sitting in that gallery, I would sit in total admiration of the manner in which Shri George Fernandes would get up and fight the battle of Saint George against every dragon And, now 50 minutes of irrelevancy! Why? Only because, hatred veils in his heart against one individual.

This is the problem with the Opposition. They do not have a cause. They have vendetta and, therefore, all that they have alleged here will be proved in the fullness of time to be a figment of imagination.

MR. SPEAKER: Everything is on record. I have been requesting all the hon. Members. Whatever a Member is saying, other Members are not bound by his statement. Therefore, you need not react to everything.

SHRI UDAY SINGH : I would like to have just an explanation from the hon. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Did he refer to you?

SHRI UDAY SINGH : No, Sir. He talked about documents being brought from the United Nations. Do we take it that Shri Natwar Singh has been divested of his portfolio post the documents have been examined?

मोहम्मद सलीम : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ºÉÖ¤Éc ºÉä càÉ <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ¤ÉcºÉ BÉE® ®cä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉBÉDºÉ® ªÉc näJÉÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉ àÉÖqä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®ÉÒÉÊBÉEªÉÉå BÉEä +ÉÆn® xÉ VÉÉBÉE® ºÉÖÉÌJɪÉÉå BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä nÉè½ ®cä cé* VÉèºÉä ÉÊBÉE ABÉE àÉÖcÉ´É®É cè – {Éä½ ÉÊMÉxÉiÉä, ÉÊMÉxÉiÉä +ÉÉè® ÉÊMÉxÉÉiÉä, ÉÊMÉxÉÉiÉä VÉÆMÉãÉ £ÉÉÒ £ÉÚãÉ MɪÉä* ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ {ÉEÉ<xÉãÉ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç VÉ¤É +ÉÉ<Ç, ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä àÉÉä¶ÉxÉ àÉÚ´É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, àÉé =xcÉÓ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ, VÉ¤É ´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ºÉä <ºiÉÉÒ{ÉEÉ àÉÉÆMÉ ®cä lÉä, càÉÉ®ÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ ºÉÉÒ.{ÉÉÒ.+ÉÉ<Ç.(AàÉ.) =ºÉÉÒ ÉÊnxÉ ºÉä, ÉÊVÉºÉ ®ÉäVÉ ºÉä +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå àÉå ºÉÖÉÌJɪÉÉÆ +ÉÉ<ÇÆ, càÉxÉä <ºÉ àÉÉàÉãÉä BÉEÉÒ iÉc àÉå VÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA <ÆBÉD´ÉɪɮÉÒ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ BÉEÉÒ* cBÉEÉÒBÉEiÉ àÉÉãÉÚàÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉÉ®ÉÒ º´Énä¶ÉÉÒ ÉÊ¥ÉMÉäb ÉÊ´ÉnäÉʶɪÉÉå BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå <iÉxÉÉ BÉÖEU BÉEciÉÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ä +É{ÉxÉä º´Énä¶ÉÉÒ Aà¤ÉäºÉäb® ¤ÉMÉnÉn ºÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ àÉå ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ £ÉäVÉä ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ºÉ¤É +ÉJɤÉÉ®Éå àÉå +ÉÉ ®cÉ cè, VÉ®É näÉÊJɪÉä* SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE ´Éc º´Énä¶ÉÉÒ Aà¤ÉäºÉäb® lÉä, =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ <xcå {É®ä¶ÉÉxÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cÖ<Ç +ÉÉè® SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE {ÉÉìãÉ ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç +ÉÉ<Ç cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA =ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® àÉckÉÉ nä ®cä cé, VÉ¤É ÉÊBÉE {ÉÚ®ä Éʴɶ´É àÉå BÉEcÉÓ £ÉÉÒ ´ÉÉäãBÉE® àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç +ÉcÉÊàɪÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç* BÉDªÉÉå nåMÉä? …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record.

(Interruptions) …*

मोहम्मद सलीम : ªÉc ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç BÉDªÉÉå +ÉÉ<Ç? यह कमेटी क्यों बनी ? १९९० से १९९३ तक की वे तमाम बातें मैं नहीं कहूंगा, जो हमारे कुलीग्स कह चुके हैं। १२ साल से जो आर्थिक नाकाबंदी चल रही थी, जो इंसानियत के ऊपर एक धब्बा थी। पूरा विश्व का जनमत जब यह मान रहा था कि इराकी बच्चों को बचाने की जरूरत है, तब ऑयल फॉर फूड प्रोग्राम लागू हुआ। यह १९९६ में चालू हुआ और १९९८ में कोटा फीस बढ़ाई गई। अब यू.एन. के ऊपर अमरीकी यह लांछन लगा रहे थे और उनके जो पिठ्ठू हैं, एक तरफ वे अपना हयूमैन फेस दिखाने के लिए कहते हैं कि हां यह ठीक है, इसलिए ऑयल फॉर फूड प्रोग्राम हो जाए और दूसरी तरफ वे यह भी कहते हैं कि यह नहीं होना चाहिए। किस तरह से इसमें रुकावट पैदा की जाए – आज यह कहा जा रहा है। वोल्कर ने अपनी रिपोर्ट में कहा कि इंक्वायरी कमेटी भी कितनी इंडिपैन्डैन्ट है। वह खुद कहे किकबैक, वह अपनी शब्दाबली में खुद कहे मालप्रैक्टिसिज। मैं उनके जो दूसरे सदस्य हैं, जज के बारे में कहना नहीं चाहता, लेकिन रंगभेद के मामले में उन्होंने साउथ अफ्रीका में कितना नाम कमाया है, यह सबको मालूम है। हमारी यह बात महत्वपूर्ण है कि एक देश, जिसकी नाकाबंदी चल रही है, उन्हें विदेश के साथ सम्पर्क करने और वाणिज्य करने की कोई इजाजत नहीं हैं, पांच साल के बाद उन्हें मौका मिलता

* Not Recorded.

है, आप उस सरकार की सॉवरेनिटी की बात कर रहे हैं। उस सरकार को पूरा हक है कि मुल्क के लोगों को बचाने के लिए और कामकाज करने के लिए वह जैसा चाहे टैक्स लगा सके। हमारी पार्टी या आपकी पार्टी ने खुद कहा कि हम सब लोग और पूरा देश सैंक्शंस के खिलाफ था, फिर आज यह सवाल क्यों उठाया जा रहा है। वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट के जो दस्तावेज हासिल किये हैं, वोल्कर जी और दूसरे सदस्य खुद कह रहे हैं कि वे कभी इराक में नहीं गये, फिर ये दस्तावेज कहां से मिले, जो मैटिकुलसली मेन्टेन्ड हैं। उन्होंने उस बिल्िंडग पर बॉम्िंबग नहीं की। अमरीका जानता था कि इस बिल्िंडग के अंदर वे सब डाकूमैन्ट्स थे। अमरीका, यू.के. और जो उनकी कोएलीशन फोर्सेज हैं, उन्होंने १५ सालों से पीस टाइम में और वार टाइम में बॉम्िंबग की, लेकिन उस बिल्िंडग को बचाये रखा, क्योंकि वे जानते थे कि आडवाणी जी के लिए वहां से डाकूमैन्ट्स निकलने वाले हैं। उसके बाद वे खुद कह रहे हैं कि इराक में पोस्ट इन्वेजन, जो अमरीका ने अपनी पिठ्ठू सरकार बनाई, उन्होंने डाकूमैन्ट्स दिये हैं, रिपोट्र्स में यह कहा गया है। रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि हम अमरीकी सरकार को बहुत बहुत धन्यवाद दे रहे हैं क्योंकि उनकी एक्टिव असिस्टैन्स के बिना हम .यहां काम नहीं कर सकते। आज पूरी दुनिया में यह क्यों कहा जा रहा है? वोल्कर कमेटी को क्या पड़ी है कि वह कांग्रेस या भारत सरकार का नाम ले? सिर्फ कांग्रेस ही नहीं, बल्कि पूरे विश्व में जिसने भी इराक का साथ दिया, जो भी इराक में अमरीका के इनवेज़न के खिलाफ़ है, जो अमरीका को वल्र्ड अम्पायर बनाने की कोशिश के खिलाफ है, उन सबको बाद में लगा कि अमरीका की तरफ से यह कोशिश जारी है। …( व्यवधान)

श्री उदय सिंह : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ BÉDªÉÉå xÉcÉÓ +ÉɪÉÉ? …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please do not interrupt each other. Please conclude. You address the Chair and ignore the interruptions.

मोहम्मद सलीम : ªÉÚAxÉ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç ¤ÉiÉÉxÉä àÉå càÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ¶ÉàÉÇ xÉcÉÓ cè* càÉ nÉ´Éä ºÉä BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä nºÉ ºÉÉãÉÉå àÉå ªÉÚAxÉ+ÉÉä BÉEÉä ªÉÚAxÉA ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* BÉEÉäÉÊ¶É¶É BÉEÉÒ VÉÉ ®cÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä ªÉc ªÉÚxÉÉ<]äb xÉä¶ÉÆºÉ +ÉÉì{ÉE +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ ¤ÉxÉä* +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä VÉèºÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä ªÉÚAºÉ BÉEÉä ´ÉãbÇ +Éà{Éɪɮ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ ºÉÉäSÉ cè, àÉé =xɺÉä {ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ ºÉÉä´É®xÉ àÉÖãBÉE cè ªÉÉ +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ{É]Â~Ú nä¶É cè? …( व्यवधान) आपको सुनना पड़ेगा।

MR. SPEAKER: Please conclude.

मोहम्मद सलीम : ªÉä ÉÊbºÉ]¤ÉÇ BÉE® ®cä cé* …( व्यवधान) यह इंटरनेशनल सॉलिडैरिटी का मामला है। अभी बहस हो रही है कि इसमें किकबैक मिले या ऑर्डर मिले या ऑइल कूपन मिले – क्या सॉलिडैरिटी इसलिए होती है? क्या इनकी सरकार और इनकी पार्टी ने इराक की जनता के प्रति अपने को संबद्ध किया, इसलिए ऑइल कूपन मिले? अगर वह तथ्य हम मान लेते हैं तो पूरी दुनिया में आज जो न्यू वल्र्ड ऑर्डर की बात की जा रही है, उसमें जब हम more rationale, representative and democratic UN Security Council की बात कर रहे हैं, वह भी निरर्थक हो जाएगी। इस मामले में इनक्वायरी हो और इस मामले की तह तक जाया जाए, लेकिन जितनी एंटिटीज़ हैं, हम उनसे क्यों शर्माते हैं? अगर राम नाईक जी वहां पहुंचे और इंडियन आइल ने कह दिया कि हम सरचार्ज नहीं देंगे और जब रिलायंस की बात आई तो क्यों कहने से शर्माते हैं कि उनको फायदा दिया? हरेक को फायदा पहुंचा। ये कहते हैं कि कांग्रेस पार्टी ने अपने लिए काम किया है। You have worked for self-reliance but you have worked for self and reliance. आज ये अपने को साफ बता रहे हैं। उस वक्त २००४ में वाजपेयी जी और आडवाणी जी को चाहिए था कि इनक्वायरी कराते। अगर उस समय नहीं की तो अब हो रही है। इसकी तह तक जाना चाहिए। नटवर सिंह जी को विदेश मंत्रालय से हटा देने से आप किसको खुश करना चाह रहे हैं – क्या भारतीय जनता पार्टी को या जिसकी बात आप कर रहे हैं उऩके मास्टर्स को? पूरी दुनिया में एक नया प्रचार किया जा रहा है। वे जिनको वाशिंगटन में बैठकर पसंद करेंगे उनको रखा जाएगा और जिनको वे पसंद नहीं करते, उनको हटा दिया जाएगा।

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will be recorded.

(Interruptions) …*

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Salim, you have concluded your speech. Please do not get provoked. I thank you for your cooperation.

* Not Recorded.


SHRI MANVENDRA SINGH : Sir, how much time do I have?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to say that like others you also have five minutes.

SHRI MANVENDRA SINGH : Sir, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak in favour of the Adjournment Motion.

I am really moved by the great yarns that have been woven all through this debate. The Cabinet Ministers and Comrades have spoken of this great international conspiracy. It is astonishing to see their imagination and great feel of foreign policy expertise that they have shown. Of course, it is expected because the Comrades have made a great leap forward in their ideological positioning and they found that anybody who opposes the US way of life is targeted in a conspiracy. Of course, the conspiracy sounds a lot like Don Quixotes but that is a separate matter.

I am astonished that they would think that this is a conspiracy to tarnish the image of the Congress party when the same Government and its constituents entered into two very far-reaching foreign policy agreements — a nuclear deal and a vote on Iran – with the United States that shocked them, I am sure, as much as it shocked a lot of other people. So, to assume that this is a conspiracy against the party is a great fiction. It is stretching the imagination beyond possibility.

As far as this conspiracy of the Volcker Committee is concerned, I do not want to get into the tables; I do not want to get into the names and I do not want to get into the entities. It is a fairly simple case. It is so simple that even Inspector CLUSOE could have solved it. It involves the people and entities who were not contracted by the United Nations to lift oil and those entities benefited. Those entities benefited because somebody signed on their behalf, or they signed themselves. Somebody signed on behalf of the former Minister of External Affairs and somebody signed on behalf of the Congress party. We, as Indians, are concerned that the image of India is being tarnished and we would like to know as to who signed on behalf of these entities. It is a very simple request. It is not a conspiracy… (Interruptions)

The Volcker Committee examined, according to my information, twelve million documents. It is not 630 pages as various hon. Members have made out to be. The Committee examined twelve million documents. Some hon. Members here have suggested that Mr. Volcker was so ignorant that he even named the Congress party wrong. If you read the Report it says specifically that the names are translated from the Arabic original. I had been a student of Arabic and I can say that what has been recorded as the name of the Congress party is how you write it in Arabic. To assume that this is a conspiracy and to assume that because sovereignty lies in somebody else’s hands and a regime that we were friendly with and that regime has been removed, so there is a conspiracy, I would like to remind the hon. Members that I have had the experience of living in a Ba’athist regime and it seems that life there is nothing like what the Members here have made out to be. The unpleasant daily existence of life in a Ba’athist regime is beyond the expectation and beyond the imagination of what any comrade has ever achieved in a Gulag. This is not in defence of Mr. Saddam Hussain. This is not in defence of any Government. It is a simple matter of entities and names benefiting from a programme that was meant to secure Iraq and its people commodities at the best price. In that process, as my senior colleagues have already pointed out, somebody did dalali and somebody made profits. It is an immoral transaction and it is the details of that immoral transaction that we are after.

The details are fairly simple. It does not take a retired UN official, whether of Indian origin or any origin, to travel to New York to get those documents. It is because we have our UN Mission existing in New York in any case. You do not need a fancy name in order to get those documents. All that is required is to send the right officials, procure the documents which are available for any Government. We would like to have the same documents which detail who signed on behalf of the former External Affairs Minister and who signed on behalf of the Congress party to benefit. That is all we are asking for.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much for your kind co-operation.

The next speaker is Shri Subroto Bose. You have only one and a half minute to make your submission. But you may finish your submissions within four minutes.

SHRI SUBRATA BOSE: Sir, I rise to oppose the Adjournment Motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the day.

I think, first of all, we should all appreciate the prompt and appropriate action taken by the Government firstly appointing or deputing a special envoy to the UN to collect the documents, secondly by appointing an Inquiry Authority to investigate and inquire into the allegations made in the Volcker Report and its enclosures against Indian entities for having been involved in the oil-for-food programme scam and thirdly, to take a difficult decision, maybe for any Government, to divest a Minister of the portfolio which he was having for quite sometime.

The hon. Leader of Opposition had mentioned or had opined that the documents collected by the Special Envoy should be placed before the House immediately. But I think it is fit and proper that when an Inquiry Authority has been appointed, the documents so collected should be first given over to the Inquiry Authority so that it could investigate and inquire into all these documents and submit a comprehensive report.

The hon. Leader of Opposition has also expressed his apprehensions on the appointment of an Inquiry Authority instead of a Commission of Inquiry. I think he has expressed his apprehension particularly on one point, if I am right, regarding Section 11 of the relevant Act which will be available to the Inquiry Authority. I think, perhaps there is a point in what he says. But such a respected and reputed person and a person who has held the highest post and position in the judiciary of the country will take care of the decisions, if any, of the Inquiry Authority and will be able to give us a full and comprehensive report.

I think the Motion moved today by the hon. Leader of Opposition is premature because without the report of the Inquiry Authority, no fruitful discussion can take place. It is not only without the report of the Inquiry Committee but also the Action Taken Report of the Government. Therefore, I oppose the Motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI : Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

The debate was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition. In his opening remarks, he has stated that the offices of the Iraqi Oil Trading Company were not damaged during the carpet bombing which took place from 1991 onwards till the occupation of Iraq and just now, I have heard the hon. Member from the BJP stating that nearly a million copies were looked into. I really find it surprising that the same American forces have failed to unearth an iota of evidence relating to the weapons of mass destruction but Mr. Volcker has somehow unearthed it. He has somehow found that so many individuals, companies and the Congress Party are the non-contractual beneficiaries.

Sir, through you, I would like to suggest to the Government that India should move a motion in the UN that Mr. Paul Volcker should be sent to Iraq once again to search for weapons of mass destruction so that the whole world should know the truth. I really do not know and I am surprised that this particular building was saved. In Iraq, small children could not get milk powder and more than ten lakh small children died but Mr. Volcker could somehow find it out. I am surprised at this.

It shows, may be, his integrity also. There is a meeting point between the BJP and the Organisation to which Mr. Volcker belongs to. Both of them are called neocons, that is neo conservatives. I would say that they are neo cons also. They are newcons also and neo cons also. So, there is a meeting point. The meeting point is that anyone who opposes the US hegemony has to be targeted.

As a party, we oppose the Congress Party, in our State also. Many times we have gone against them. We still go against them. As far as my opinion is concerned and my Party’s opinion is concerned, as long as Shrimati Sonia Gandhi is the President of the Congress Party, I do not think any corruption charges can be alleged against her. I cannot talk about the past. I do not want to go into the past. But at the same time I really find it surprising that a political party, which under his leadership demolished Babri Masjid on 6th December, which butchered humanity in Gujarat when he was Home Minister, is talking like this today. This is double talk. Of course, corruption is corruption. I am condemning corruption. But how can you hold moral ground? When the same thing happened, at that time what happened to your conscience? What happened to your integrity? What happened to the sovereignty and love for the country? All that was not there.

This is time for self-introspection for the UPA also. We should not fall head over heels and do whatever US wants us to do or whatever policy it wants us to adopt. It is high time that we follow an independent foreign policy. Whatever you do, the US will target you. Let us also ponder, if the UPA was not in power and if the NDA had been in power, would Shri Natwar Singh have been named or would the Congress Party have been named? This is also a question which the UPA should think over.

I oppose the Motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise, on behalf of the Government, to oppose the Adjournment Motion. I can quite appreciate the fact that not many had an opportunity to wade through the hundreds of pages of the Volcker Committee Report. It is not light reading. But I am surprised that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have great respect did not pay a little more attention to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and the Terms of Reference of the Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority. Some of the younger Members of the Opposition, I thought, would have summoned the time and the energy to go through the Volcker Committee Report. I think they ought to have taken the trouble to go through the Report to assist the senior leaders.

Sir, sanctions were imposed on Iraq in or about 1990 or 1991. Iraq was not allowed to sell oil. In December 1996 the United Nations authorised a Programme called the Oil For Food Programme (OFFP). Every contract was approved by the United Nations, but — this is important — the purchaser was to be chosen by Iraq. In fact, it was the Government of Iraq which chose the purchasers. I think, Shrimati Maneka Gandhi should pay attention to this. Far from people rushing to Iraq – in a colourful expression like flies swarming on a corpse – it is the Government of Iraq which chose the purchaser. For four years, nothing happened. But the suffering of the people of Iraq reached such acute proportions, that Iraq – I am not holding a brief for the then Government of Iraq – was forced to find ways and means to raise money. Why did they raise money? What did they spend the money on? It is a matter for the Government of Iraq and the people of Iraq. Some say they raised the money so that they could get milk, they could get food, they could get drugs and pharmaceuticals. Some say they raised the money so that they could get weapons. It is not for me standing here to stand in judgement over the Government of Iraq. That was for the Government of Iraq.

In the autumn of the year 2000, the Government of Iraq decided that while the Government chose the purchaser and sold the oil at an UN approved price, there was an opportunity to charge an extra amount which was called the ‘surcharge’. The contracting party, for example in the two cases we are considering, was Masefield. The sale was to Masefield. According to the Volcker Report, Masefield paid a surcharge to an Iraqi controlled account in Jordan. The question is this. In that transaction, was there another beneficiary whom the Volcker Committee names as non-contractual beneficiary? Now, it is on record that the Volcker Committee does not regard its Report as a finding of guilt nor does it say it is an indictment of anyone named in the Report. Mr. Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary-General, on the 7th of November said:

“The Report was not tantamount to a legal charge-sheet or a finding that some wrong has been committed.”

On the 9th of November, he said:

“It is a Committee of Inquiry. It is not a judicial panel and it is not in a position to make any judicial determination of guilt. It has laid out a number of facts that it has been able to establish with varying degrees of proof and substantiation.”

Sir, you are a distinguished lawyer. There are many distinguished lawyers in this House. They will understand the import of the statement. Now, I repeat it:

“It has laid out a number of facts that it has been able to establish with varying degrees of proof and substantiation.” The onus, thereafter, is on the national Governments, national authorities to take such action, as they deem appropriate”.

Therefore, when this fifth and final substantive Report was published, we were faced with, among other entries, two entries which caused grave concern. One entry said: “Mr. K. Natwar Singh”. The other entry said: “India-Congress Party”. I am not quibbling about the way it is described. Let us assume that the entries refer to the then External Affairs Minister and to the Congress Party. There are many other entries. There are other contracting parties with an India-connection. There are other non-contractual beneficiaries with an India-connection. But this Motion is on the Indian entities and individuals allegedly involved in non-contractual beneficiaries. That is why, I confine my reply only to the non-contractual beneficiaries. There is a public sector company which had an oil contract but no surcharge was paid. There is a public sector company which is concerned with humanitarian goods contract. There are private sector companies with humanitarian goods contracts. There is a private sector company with an oil contract. In some cases, there is a reference to non-contractual beneficiaries. In most of the cases, there is none. In two of the most important cases, there is no surcharge paid. The Volcker Committee says so. In any event, it has not been possible to “establish a fact with varying degrees of proof and substantiation of any payment.”

The question is this. What credence do we give to this Report? Other Governments reacted differently. Some of them have dismissed it out of hand. In the case of one or two, of course, some internal inquiry is being done. I want you to contrast what other Governments have done and what this Government has done.

Now, look at the internal evidence in the Volcker Committee Report. It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence in any system of jurisprudence that before you name somebody, you give him an opportunity. Mr. Volcker was asked: “Did you give notice?” His memory played tricks with him. He said: “Yes, we gave notice to everyone named.” He was confronted with the Report. It turned out to be that when he said “I gave notice to everyone named”, he was referring to the contracting parties, the 139 contracting parties. It is now on record that no non-contractual beneficiary was given a notice by the Volcker Committee. And, even of the 139, the Volcker Committee admits “by inadvertence, we did not give notice to 12.” So, it is absolutely clear that no notice was given either to Shri Natwar Singh or to the Congress Party yet they were named.

Now, read that circumstance with the earlier statement of the Volcker Committee, on behalf of the Volcker Committee that these are facts with varying degrees of proof and substantiation. So, facts are not proved; facts are not fully substantiated, read with the fact that no notice was given. Another Government could have taken the position saying “we reject it outright.” In fact, there are cases in this country where people against whom charges were made were asked to resign – that is an honourable way out – but were brought back even before they were acquitted. … (Interruptions) There are cases in this country where people facing charge-sheets running into 10,000 pages were holding high offices.… (Interruptions) The point is this. How did this Government react?… (Interruptions) Just wait for a moment. … (Interruptions)

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : +ÉÉ{É ó{É® nºÉ-nºÉ cVÉÉ® {ÉäVÉÉå BÉEä BÉEäºÉäWÉ cé +ÉÉè® ªÉcÉÆ MÉ´ÉxÉÇàÉéàÉ] BÉEÉ ÉÊb{ÉE®éºÉ ¤ÉiÉÉ ®cä cé*

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: I know that some of them are your very close friends. So, in this case, the allegation is that there were four payments made concerning these two non-contractual beneficiaries in March 2001, May 2001, June 2001 and November 2001.

The point now is, “Were these payments made? Who made these payments? On whose behalf these payments were made?” If these payments were made on behalf of ‘someone’, that ‘someone’ was also a beneficiary. These are the questions which have to be answered. Are there answers in the Volcker Committee report for this? Can anyone, Sir, in this House stand up and say, “Answers to these questions can be found in the Volcker Committee.” If anyone is able to say, “Answers to these questions are in the Volcker Committee Report”, I rest my case. I have nothing further to say. But there are no answers to these questions. These questions have to be raised and answered and the only way to do it and that is the honourable way to do it and that is the honourable path which this Government has taken, namely, to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Now, question is being asked and I am surprised that my friend should shake his head vigorously when somebody asserted that this is the Commission of Inquiry. It is a Commission of Inquiry. Is there any doubt about it? Here is the Commission of Inquiry Act. This Act was made in 1952, not by this Government. There are Section 3 and Section 11. Under Section 3, you can appoint a Commission of Inquiry; all other provisions of the Act automatically apply. Under Section 11, you can appoint an Inquiry Authority and apply such of the provisions of the Act as the Government so directs. That is the only difference. But someone should have briefed Shri Advani.

The last portion of Section 11 is crucial – “and upon a Notification made directing that the said provisions of this Act shall apply to that Authority and “on the issue of such Notification, that Authority shall be deemed to be a Commission appointed under Section 3 for the purposes of this Act.” I am sure somebody should have briefed you on this.

PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA : Why briefed?… (Interruptions)

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: I tell you ‘why’. For the first time, you are hearing this Section read out to you. Therefore, wait for me to tell you ‘why’. So, we have a choice – Section 3 or Section 11. The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked rightly, “Who invoked Section 11 first in the history of India?” The answer is, Sir, your Government. In April, 1977, in May, 1977, it was the then Government which, I believe, you were a distinguished member invoked Section 11, appointed an Authority and applied the provisions of the Act to that Authority. Again, in February, 1988, Section 11 was invoked. Again, in February, 1989, Section 11 was invoked. So, invoking Section 11 is not new. Why did we invoke Section 11?

After we were able to obtain the consent of Chief Justice R.S. Pathak, I went to him and said, “Chief Justice, here is the Act. Now, please tell us whether you would like to be appointed under Section 3 or whether you would like to be appointed under Section 11.” Chief Justice Pathak told me and he said that on television, “Government has agreed to give me all the powers that I want.” I gave him the Act. Chief Justice Pathak said, “Appoint me under Section 11 and here are the following provisions which I would like apply to me.” So, what did we do wrong? The only two Sections that have not been given to Chief Justice Pathak, apart from one or two irrelevant Sections which do not apply to this Inquiry, are Sections 8 (B) and 8 (C). Sections 8 (B) and 8 (C), Sir, do not confer powers. They are restrictions upon the Commission. They are procedural restrictions upon the Commission. So, Chief Justice Pathak said, “I do not want these restrictions. I want complete flexibility to frame my own procedure, to frame my own rules.” Therefore, appoint me under Section 11, give me the following powers and I do not want Section 8 (B) and Section 8 (C). If Chief Justice Pathak wants Section 8 (B) and Section 8 (C), here I make a promise – “Tomorrow we will make a Notification giving him Section 8 (B) and Section 8 (C).” So, what is the complaint? It is a full-fledged Commission of Inquiry, and if you go through the Section, you will find it has the powers under Section 5; it has the powers under Section 5 (A) to utilise any investigating agency. It has the power underSection 6.

19.00 hrs.

It has the powers under Section 8 without the restriction in Section 8 B, it has the powers under Section 9 which is protection of action taken in good faith, it has the powers under Section 10, it has the powers under Section 10 A, and any other power, not restriction which the Commission wants, we are willing to confer upon it. Therefore, this is a full-fledged Commission of Inquiry. It is a Commission of Inquiry for all purposes and the Report of the Commission of Inquiry will be laid on the Table of the House with an Action Taken Report as required under Section 3 (4) and this House is free to discuss and come to its conclusion.

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : When you have bothered to explain Section 11, why have you not gone to Section 3?

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: I tried to answer in English language. If I try to answer in Hindi, you will have difficulty because my Hindi is not good. … (Interruptions)

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : You have explained Section 11. Why have you not done so about Section 3?

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Sir, I have just explained that.

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY : You have just explained that Justice Pathak wanted the Commission of Inquiry to be set up under Section 11. That is the only summary you have explained.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Is that not a good explanation?

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY (PURI): Why not under Section 3?

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: It is because if you appoint it under Section 3, the restrictions of Section 8 B and 8 C will automatically apply and the Chief Justice does not want those restrictions. I hope you understand now. Anyway, your leaders have understood. That is enough for me.

Sir, it is easy to wake up a man who is asleep, but if someone is pretending to sleep how can you wake him up?

Sir, what are the steps that we have taken? There were various comments made that we are trying to whitewash and trying to cover up. What is the cover up? From day one and until today, kindly remember, these references are, to use the mildest phrase, unverified references. There is no proof, there is no substantiation. Why do I say so?

There are 139 oil contracts and there are 2,253 non-oil contracts. Of the 139 oil contracts, notice was issued to 127 companies. Volcker Committee took the trouble of discussing several oil contracts in Chapter II, a very detailed discussion is there. Volcker Committee took the trouble of discussing several non-oil contracts in another chapter. But for some strange reason, not one Indian entity’s oil contract or non-oil contract is discussed anywhere in those 600 and odd pages. There is nothing at all, there is no reference at all. The only places where the references have occurred in on the Tables. Mr. Natwar Singh’s name and the Congress Party’s name occur in Table 1, Table 3 and Table 5. There is nothing anywhere in the Report dealing with these contracts. If the references were unverified on the 27th of October when the Report was published, I say with utmost humility, they remain unverified today and they will remain unverified until Justice Pathak pronounces upon it. Until the material is gathered, the documents are gathered, they are placed before the inquiry authority, until he has had an opportunity to examine them and until he has had an opportunity to conduct an inquiry and pronounce his opinion, they will remain unverified and that is all that the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister, in every statement, said, ‘as it stands today, the references are unverified’. But the Prime Minister also said that we are determined to go to the root of the matter and establish the truth or otherwise of these references. This statement was made on the 3rd of November. On the 7th of November Mr. Virendra Dayal was appointed.

On the 11th of November, Justice Pathak was appointed. On the 17th of November, Shri Virendra Dayal, accompanied by the Enforcement Director, left for New York. On the 24th of November, he returned with a mass of documents. Is there, in the history of free India, an example, where in a space of 17 days such material has been gathered? From the 7th of November to the 24th of November, in a matter of 17 days, an envoy has been able to gather most of the material made available to Mr. Volcker and this material is now available in India.

I have a feeling that the Opposition, more than angry and indignant, is really disappointed and envious. That is why, the opening bowler, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, bowled some very tame and tepid deliveries and the one who was expected to pour fire and brimstone came up with something like water and sand stone.

Shri George Fernandes’ performance today, with great respect, does no justice to his wonted reputation. It was pathetic. He had nothing to say… (Interruptions) Now, the material is here. It is now being investigated, examined and analysed. It will be placed before Justice Pathak.

What is the link between the special envoy and the inquiry authority? The Special Envoy was appointed in order to gather the material. Has he done his job or not? Does anyone in this House, I ask, doubt the stature, the integrity and the objective of Shri Virendra Dayal? No one said so. He has gathered the material.

If you look at Justice Pathak’s Terms of Reference, you will find that the Terms of Reference say, “Justice Pathak will inquire into the sources of information, materials and documents that were available with the independent inquiry committee, the Volcker Committee, with reference to the report of said Committee pertaining to Contract No. M9-54 and M10-57 and give his opinion on the authenticity and reliability of the said sources, materials and documents and whether in his opinion, the purported transactions on oil are genuine or not”.

First, the judge is being asked to determine whether the documents are authentic and reliable and whether the references are genuine or not. Then, he is being asked to give his opinion whether the references are justified or not. Then, he is being asked to inquire into the question whether any Indian entity or individual received any money or paid any money or any other thing.

I think, they are envious that in the matter of 17 days the inquiry has proceeded at such a rapid pace. I think, they are disappointed that we did not give them an opportunity for another political spectacle like the one in staged with the Justice Shah Commission Inquiry. That is why, they have virtually nothing to say about what we are doing. This is the only Government, to my knowledge, which has acted with such great speed. In fact, Mr. Volcker told Shri Dayal that the request for documents that came from India is the best-documented request and the best-substantiated request and you are the first Government to which we are handing over the documents.

Sir, does anyone doubt the integrity, fairness, and the judicial wisdom of Justice Pathak? Is there anyone in this country with better credentials than the former Chief Justice of India and the former Judge of International Court of Justice, who has undertaken this task as a national duty? Those are the words he told me. He undertakes this task as a national duty. He will now go through these documents and pronounce whether there is any basis for the references to Shri Natwar Singh and the Congress Party.

The Prime Minister and the Congress President — the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government and the Congress President, on behalf of the Congress Party – have said, “no one will be spared, no one is above law. If anyone has misused his or her position or authority, if anyone has misused the name of the Congress Party, we are determined to go to the root of the matter and find out who that person is and no one is going to be spared.”

Sir, references were made to a number of points. I do not wish to deal with them at great length.

Some references were made to a letter written by the Congress President. Yes, of course, the Congress President sent a letter greeting Saddam Hussein on his birthday. She also gave the usual customary letter of greetings through an Indian delegation. But so did the then Prime Minister, Shri Vajpayee. I think, he was right. Shri Vajpayee gave a letter to every Indian delegation that went to Iraq when he was the Prime Minister. What is wrong with it?

Sir, a reference was made to certain investigations that were being carried on by the Enforcement Directorate. I am not going to disclose what the Enforcement Directorate is doing. Obviously, you are in a way happy and in a way disappointed that the Enforcement Directorate is doing its job. It has interrogated persons and searched premises. If more persons deserve to be interrogated, they will be interrogated. If more premises deserve to be searched, they will be searched. Under Section 5A, Justice Pathak will call upon the investigating agency to assist him in the inquiry.

Sir, here we have a three-pronged approach, one through the Special Envoy to gather the material, the other through the investigating agency to investigate persons, places and documents available in India and elsewhere, and finally, Chief Justice Pathak to pronounce whether anyone has done anything wrong. Once that is done, this House is paramount. The Report will come here, the Action Taken Report will come here, and you will then pronounce whether the Government is acting fairly and honourably. If anyone is guilty, he will be punished.

Sir, I cannot think of any other honourable way to react to the Volcker Committee Report which, as it stands today, contains unverified references, facts which have not been proved, and facts which have not been substantiated. Yet, having regard to the status of that Committee, having regard to the fact that it was the United Nations Secretary-General who appointed that Committee, and having regard to the fact that the UN Security Council endorsed that Committee, we have taken the most honourable course which any Government can take, and we are determined to go to the root of the matter.

Sir, there was a reference to a legal notice sent by the Congress Party. I am a member of the Congress Party. Therefore, I am entitled to speak for the Congress Party as much as the hon. Members spoke for the BJP or whatever party they belong to. Please go through that statement. Where did that statement talk about suing the United Nations? Where did that statement talk about defamation? That statement said: “We will issue a comprehensive legal notice to the United Nations Secretary-General.” The notice issued was indeed comprehensive. It ran into five pages with facts. It was indeed legal. It was issued by an eminent law firm. It was indeed a notice. So, a comprehensive legal notice was indeed issued. You may laugh it away. The UN did not. The UN took it seriously. The United Nations acknowledged the receipt of the notice and said, “Yes, we shall pass it on to the Volcker Committee for action.” Therefore, the Government’s request backed by the Special Envoy, Shri Virendra Dayal, who has a very high reputation in the United Nations, supported by the Enforcement Directorate armed with the provisions of FEMA and the Congress Party’s notice requesting the Volcker Committee to make available all these facts, all this together have contributed to the situation where in 17 days we have gathered hundreds of pages of documents and materials.

We will go through these documents. They will be analysed. They will be examined. Further investigation will take place. The entire matter will be placed before Justice R. S. Pathak Inquiry Authority. We will find out the truth and we will place that with our action taken report before this House. There is no need, no occasion and no justification for this House to adjourn. I oppose the Motion and request that it be rejected.

प्रो. राम गोपाल यादव (सम्भल) : àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ =ààÉÉÒn lÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ VÉ¤É VÉ´ÉÉ¤É nåMÉä, iÉÉä BÉÖEU AäºÉÉ BÉEcåMÉä ÉÊBÉE ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä =ºÉ {É® BÉÖEU £É®ÉäºÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® ºÉ¤É BÉÖEU MÉãÉiÉ lÉÉ, iÉÉä àÉé VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE {ÉcãÉä ÉÊnxÉ ºÉä cÉÒ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ xÉä xÉ]´É® É˺Éc VÉÉÒ ºÉä BÉDªÉÉå {ÉããÉÉ ZÉɽ ÉÊãɪÉÉ? BÉDªÉÉå =xÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É£ÉÉMÉ ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ãÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ? VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEä àÉxÉ àÉå =ºÉÉÒ ÉÊnxÉ ºÉä ºÉÆnäc =i{ÉxxÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE nÉãÉ àÉå BÉÖEU xÉ BÉÖEU BÉEÉãÉÉ cè* ABÉE ¤ÉSÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cè, nںɮä BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cè* àÉÖZÉä PÉÉä® ÉÊxɮɶÉÉ cÖ<Ç cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé <ºÉ =kÉ® ºÉä +ɺÉÆiÉÖ­] cÉäiÉä cÖA <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ àÉå +É{ÉxÉÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ºÉnxÉ ºÉä ¤ÉÉÊcMÉÇàÉxÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*

19.16 hrs.

(Shri Ram Gopal Yadav and some other hon. Members then

left the House.)

SHRI KINJARAPU YERRANNAIDU : Mr. Speaker, Sir, my Party is also walking out for the same reason.

19.16 ¼ hrs.

(At this stage, Shri Kinjarapu Yerrannaidu and some other

hon. Members left the House.)

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has a right of reply.


श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®ÉÒ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEä °ô{É àÉå +ÉÉVÉ ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç {É® SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ +ɴɺɮ ÉÊnªÉÉ* +ÉÉVÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå VÉÉä ¤ÉcºÉ cÖ<Ç, ´Éc ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉSUÉÒ lÉÉÒ* <ºÉ ¤ÉcºÉ àÉå, VÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE ºlÉMÉxÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ cé, =xÉBÉEÉÒ nÉä |ÉàÉÖJÉ BÉEè]äMÉ®ÉÒVÉ cé +ÉÉè® ABÉE iÉÉҺɮÉÒ £ÉÉÒ UÉä]ÉÒ ºÉÉÒ BÉEè]äMÉ®ÉÒ cè* ABÉE ´ÉMÉÇ lÉÉ, VÉÉä ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉä cÉÒ MÉãÉiÉ àÉÉxÉiÉÉ lÉÉ* ´ÉÉäãBÉE® BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEä BÉEÆ]äx]弃 BÉEÉä cÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ näiÉÉ lÉÉ, ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE =ºÉBÉEä àÉÉä]ÉÒ´Éä¶ÉÆºÉ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ näiÉÉ lÉÉ*



मैं यह जानता था कि उत्तर आएगा और इसीलिए मैंने अपने भाषण में जिस बात पर बल दिया, वह यह दिया कि सरकार और कांग्रेस पार्टी के रिसपौंस में जो फ्लिप-फ्लाप था, वह मेरी समझ में नहीं आया। अगर सरकार और कांग्रेस पार्टी शुरू से इसी प्रकार का स्टैंड लेती जो आज लिया है तो शायद ऐसी स्थिति नहीं आती जिस में इस प्रकार का स्थगन प्रस्ताव लाना पड़ता। आज का भाषण सुन कर मुझे ऐसा लगा कि आज श्री नटवर सिंह को यह सोचने का पूरा हक होगा और शायद पूरा जस्टिफिकेशन होगा कि अगर यह स्टैंड सरकार और कांग्रेस पार्टी के लोगों का है तो फिर मुझे किस लिए निकाल दिया?

श्री हरिन पाठक न्हें बलि का बकरा बना दिया।

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : इसीलिए यह जो शक है और हरिन पाठक जी जो बात कह रहे हैं, वह बात आम तौर पर कही जाती है। लगता है कि इनको बलि का बकरा बनाया गया है। मैं नहीं जानता? मैं प्रतीक्षा करूंगा। खास तौर पर चिदम्बरम जी जैसे कुशल वकील ने इतनी सफाई के साथ अपने जवाब को प्रस्तुत किया है …( व्यवधान)

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM : For a minutes please. Sir, I am surprised of the hon. Leader of the Opposition should say that there has been a flip flop. The earlier statement given by the Prime Minister … (Interruptions) Just a moment please … (Interruptions) The problem is that I think you read only your own Party newspaper. You do not read anything which is authentic. On behalf of the Prime Minister, it was said on the 30th of October that the facts mentioned in the Report are insufficient to arrive at any adverse conclusion. … (Interruptions) Just a moment. I am reading the statement. … (Interruptions) The Prime Minister does not write The Hindu.… (Interruptions) The Government of India does not publish a newspaper. The Government of India’ statements are with me. On behalf of the Prime Minister, on the 30th of October, it was said that the facts mentioned in Table 3 of the Report of the independent Inquiry Committee are insufficient to arrive at any adverse conclusion against the External Affairs Minister. On the 3rd of November, this is what the Prime Minister said: “The Volcker Committee Report as it stands today is insufficient to arrive at any adverse or definitive conclusion.” There is no flip and there is no flop. These are the same words. Then the Prime Minister said: “Therefore, the Government is determined to go to the root of the matter and establish the truth or otherwise of these allegations.” This is the first statement issued by the Prime Minister. There has been no flip and no flop. … (Interruptions)

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : ºÉÉ®ä nä¶É xÉä näJÉÉ* =xcÉåxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉxÉàÉÉäcxÉ É˺Éc VÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ VÉÉÒ xÉä =xcå BÉDãÉÉÒxÉ ÉÊSÉ] nÉÒ cè* àÉä®É BÉEÉä<Ç BÉEºÉÚ® xÉcÉÓ cè +ÉÉè® àÉé àÉÆjÉÉÒ {Én xÉcÉÓ UÉäbÚÆMÉÉ* <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä


MR. SPEAKER: Now it is 1925 hours. We could to have voted by this time.

… (Interruptions)

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ÉÊSÉnà¤É®àÉ VÉÉÒ ABÉE BÉÖE¶ÉãÉ ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ cé* àÉé =xÉBÉEÉ àÉÖBÉEɤÉãÉÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <iÉxÉÉ VÉ°ô® BÉEcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊnxÉ <ºÉ BÉDãÉÉÒxÉ ÉÊSÉ] ¶É¤n BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® xÉ]´É® É˺Éc VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉ …( व्यवधान) वह आपके स्टेटमैंट में नहीं होगा। …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: And he is arguing without fees!

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : àÉé |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉÉn® BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ* On that day, I was in my Bihar campaign and I was constrained to observe that I have always deemed him Mr. Clean Prime Minister. Suddenly, he has become a ‘Clean-chit Prime Minister’ Incidentally, on that very day, he had described our friend sitting beside you as Vikas Purush. So, that also made me wonder really. मेरा कहना इतना ही है। आपकी ओर से पूरी कोशिश यह है कि यह कहा जा सके कि विपक्ष जानबूझ कर कांग्रेस पार्टी और नटवर सिंह जी को बदनाम करने के लिए यह सारा कैम्पेन कर रहा है। आपने देखा होगा कि मैंने सुबह कोई आरोप नहीं लगाया। मैंने यहां तक कमीशन ऑफ इनक्वायरी के बारे में भी आपसे समझना चाहा था कि सैक्शन ११ का उपयोग क्यों किया गया है ?मुझे इसकी जानकारी नहीं है। आप उसी समय इतना ही कह देते और अगर जस्टिस पाठक चाहते कि हम उसके अनुसार करें, इसके लिए हमने उनको कहा था कि ज्यूडिशल कमीशन बना सकते हैं, उन्होंने कहा हमें ऑथोरिटी दे दीजिए तो मैं उसी समय इसी से संतुष्ट हो जाता। I was not making any allegation at that time. I can only tell you about the changes that have taken place in the Congress Party’s stand. मैंने आपको उसी समय यानि सुबह भी कहा था जब मैंने १५ तारीख को कांग्रेस पार्टी की अध्यक्षा का बयान सुना उसी समय मैंने उसका स्वागत किया। यद्यपि मुझे यह जरूर लगा कि अगर दो या तीन दिनों में यही बात कही होती कि शायद हो सकता है किसी ने मेरी पार्टी के नाम का दुरुपयोग स्वयं पैसा कमाने के लिए किया है। मुझे विश्वास है कि उसके बाद कोई भी डिफेंस करता कि इसमें नाम कैसे आ गया जिसके संबंध में आज यहां बहुत-से भाषण दिए गए। आज यहां वोल्कर कमेटी की रिपोर्ट को एक प्रकार से ऐसे बताया गया मानो जैसे वह एक मोटिवेटिड रिपोर्ट थी। जिन-जिन लोगों ने, जिन-जिन पार्टियों ने, जिन-जिन व्यक्तियों ने, जिन-जिन देशों ने यह कहा है …( व्यवधान) मैंने कहा मुझे खुशी है कि इस मामले में आपका और इनका कोई मेल नहीं होता चाहे वह इकॉनमी फील्ड हो या इंटरनेशनल फील्ड हो लेकिन कुल मिलाकर बहुत बार मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि अगर आपके ऐसे साथी न होते तो आप सही रास्ते पर कैसे चलते। …( व्यवधान) लेकिन मैं फिर उस बात को दोहराऊंगा जो मैंने आज प्रात:काल में कही। This discussion on the Volcker Committee Report is not merely about this particular Report or the mention of one person or one entity in it. I regard it as a more serious problem of the vulnerability of our political leaders and political parties. इस पर बंसल जी नाराज़ हो गए। बंसल जी ने कहा ऐसे कैसे कह दिया? लेकिन यहां ऐसी चीज़ें आई हैं, इसलिए मैं स्पीकर महोदय से कहूंगा I am going to give him a Report of the House of Commons in respect of the Mitrokhin Archives. I would like that matter also to be discussed. … (Interruptions) You can argue about that but we would do it. We have not done it today because today the Congress Party and the Government are not in favour of discussing the Mitrokhin Archives. But I would plead with the Speaker and show him what it says. Basically, the vulnerability needs to be stopped. … (Interruptions)

मोहम्मद सलीम : यह रिपोर्ट कहां से आई…( व्यवधान)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : वह यहां नहीं है।

…( व्यवधान)

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी : और अगर इस डिबेट में से …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please do not disturb your Leader.

… (Interruptions)

श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी: उस डिबेट में से सदन यह निर्णय करे कि एक एक्सपर्ट कमेटी बनाई जाए कि विदेशी धन हमारी राजनीति को कैसे प्रभावित करता है और कर सकता है, उसे कैसे रोका जाए तो मैं समझता हूं कि इस सारी बहस का बहुत अच्छा परिणाम निकलेगा।

…( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: He is not conceding.

… (Interruptions)

MD. SALIM : I supporting him but I am at the same time challenging him. … (Interruptions) फॉरेन फंड्स के बारे में एक एक्सपर्ट कमेटी बनाई जाए और जांच हो। मैं इस मामले का समर्थन करता हूं …( व्यवधान)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Nothing is being recorded.

(Interruptions) … *

MR. SPEAKER: The question is:

“That the House do now adjourn.”

The motion was negatived.











* Not Recorded.




* Not Recorded.

12.21 hrs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *