Saugata Roy raises the issue of sick jute industry during Zero Hour | Full Transcript

Full Transcript

Madam, I am raising an issue, which I had raised last week regarding the jute industry in West Bengal. This is an issue which affects my colleagues Shri Dinesh Trivedi, whose constituency has 22 jute mills; Shri Kalyan Banerjee, whose constituency has many jute mills and Dr. Ratna De (Nag).

The jute is grown in Murshidabad, Nadia and all other parts up to Raiganj. In Bihar also, it is grown in Purnia, Supaul and many other parts of the State. So, it is a big problem. Over the last two years, the jute industry has been reeling under an existential crisis. This has led to around 25 per cent mills out of total of 56 in the State being shut and nearly one lakh workmen rendered jobless.

Even yesterday, Weaverly Jute Mill in Shyamnagar and Nadia Jute Mill at Naihati closed down making the tally to 11 jute mills closed in 11 days. The livelihoods of around 40 lakh farmer families are endangered due to uncertainty. In the meantime, Bangladeshi jute industry has doubled its size in last seven years and jute products are being hailed globally as an environment friendly alternative to plastics.

The precarious situation has arisen mainly due to the acts of the Central Government such as:

1) Dilution of the Mandatory Packaging Act – introduced by Shri Rajiv Gandhi – from 100 per cent reservation for sugar and foodgrains – 20 per cent for sugar and 90 per cent for foodgrains on strong lobbying by plastic industry;

2) continuous attempts to violate the Act further by sugar industry and procurement agencies:

(a) default in procurement of bags despite mandatory requirements,

(b) attempts to keep jute bags out of the National Food Security Mission,

(c) erratic indenting of jute bags in violation of established norms and system;

3) Erosion of the non-governmental market due to heavy imports from Bangladesh aided by

(a) zero duty on imports and

(b) 10 per cent export subsidy by Government of Bangladesh;

4) the procurement of jute bags has fallen from an average of 26.8 lakh bales annually (July to June) in 2013 to 20.3 lakh bales in 2013-14 and 19.9 lakh bales in 2014-15 (July to May);

5) The lack of demand has led to many mills cutting production which has aggravated labour issues, leading to violence and closure.

In the face of the shrinking market and added uncertainty about the future, the jute industry is going through de-growth. Investments in modernisation and product diversification have all but stopped since 2012-13. Joblessness among workers is creating skill deficit while uncertainty over market is discouraging jute farmers from adoption of the best practices developed over long years.

A strong supporting hand by the Central Government by way of stable orders for an extended time period and protection from cheap imports is required. This will lead to modernisation of industry resulting in cheaper and more efficient jute bags, diversification of products to increase market footprint beyond packaging into new areas like consumer bags, geotextiles etc. An environment-friendly and sustainable product like jute, will help solve a lot of national problems like river pollution, depletion of petrochemicals, landfill overload.

Madam, I had raised it last week. There is no response from the Minister. I have been looking for the Minister, Shri Gangwar, for the last three days. He is nowhere to be visible. Will there be any response from him? Or, will mill after mill close down? He is from Bareilly. There are no jute mills or textile mills in Bareilly. He does not care.

The industry is shutting down, putting lives of lakhs of farmers and workers at stake. There is no response from the Government as a whole to this big crisis in the jute industry. The Government remains silent. It is very strange that this is the way the Government is responding to people’s woes and miseries!

Sudip Bandyopadhyay speaks on Land Bill | Full Transcript

Full Transcript

Hon’ble Deputy Speaker Sir,

I rise to oppose the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015. Sir, a land bill was brought by UPA Government in 2013. It was debated on the August 28, 2013 and both Congress and BJP supported the Bill. There was voting. The voting result was: 268 Ayes & 19 Noes. The 19 noes were from Trinamool Congress only; this voting was on my amendment and the motion was lost.

Who was the main Speaker in Lok Sabha on behalf of BJP? Rajnath Sigh ji was the main speaker who spoke on behalf of the Bill. Who was the main Speaker in Rajya Sabha on behalf of BJP? Mr Katiyar was the main speaker on behalf of BJP in Rajya Sabha. What is the necessity of introduction of another Bill when one Bill is already passed on the floor of the House with division of votes? Everybody has now come to know that what is the role of which party.

Trinamool Congress is of the opinion that farmers are to be given more free hand so far the Land Acquisition is concerned. We are totally against at the forceful occupancy of the land. I believe that every one of us should protest the forceful occupancy of the land on the farmers. We had our own fight in our State under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee when Singur land was occupied by a very big corporate house. We have seen the struggle of hungry farmers, how they maintain their livelihood.

Sir, land is not elastic that if you stretch it, it will increase. Land is the same but the population is increasing.  If the land is grabbed forcefully and all the decisions are taken in favour of the captains of industries or by the corporate houses, then gradually size of the land will be decrease and very soon there will be food scarcity in the country.

The Standing Committee made 13 recommendations when UPA brought a land bill. UPA Government accepted 11 recommendations but did not accept 2 recommendations. Trinamool Congress is in favour of all 13 recommendations made by the Standing Committee.

What were the two recommendations discarded by the then Rural Development Minister Hon’ble Jayram Ramesh Ji? Mainly it was that the private investor is expected to buy at least 80 per cent of the required land directly from the people. The government can acquire the remaining 20 per cent, according the draft. In case of social sectors it would be up to 70 percent other is to be acquired by the Government in whatever manner they deem fit.

What we raised objection at that time? That investor and the farmer should discuss among themselves and settle the price. It is totally to be left on the discretion of the farmers that whether he is interested or keen to sale his land or not. The government should not play the role of the mediator. It is not the duty and responsibility of the government to play a role of a mediator. Normally a farmer feels in such negotiations the attitude of the government is automatically favourable towards corporate houses.

We are against forceful acquisition of land. We believe 100% acquisition must be done by those who want to set up industry.

We also believe that only two types of land can be acquired -barren land and mono-crop land. We are against acquisition of multi-crop land.

Sir, Trinamool Congress has been at the forefront of land movement from the very beginning; we opposed the land bill even at the time of UPA Government. We still stick to our stand.

We believe this Bill will not serve the interest of common farmers. It will be certainly projected as anti-farmer and Trinamool Congress thoroughly opposes the Bill.

Thank you, Sir.

TMC opposes anti-farmer Land Bill in Lok Sabha

Trinamool Congress today strongly opposed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 – Land Bill in common parlance – in Lok Sabha.

Speaking on behalf of the party, the leader of AITC Parliamentary Party in Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandyopadhyay questioned the need for another Bill when one was already existing.

“In 2013, a Bill was passed in Parliament which was supported by both Congress and BJP. Trinamool was the only party to vote against the Land Bill of UPA,” he said.

Making a strong case for 100% consent for acquisition, he maintained that the government must not play the mediator in such cases.

“We should concentrate on barren land and mono-crop land. We are against acquisition of multi-crop land. Our stand is the same as that of 2013,” he added.

 

Click here for the full transcript of his speech

Kalyan Banerjee speaks on the Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of Tax) Bill, 2015 | Full Transcript

Full Transcript

Sir, on behalf of my party, I support the Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of Tax) Bill, 2015. Sir there is no doubt that this type of enactment was needed long back but I have some debatable questions where the merit of the Bill is concerned. The real question is whether this Bill really holds in-built provision for establishing the charges at all or not.

This Bill does not make any provision for bringing back the black money from the foreign country to India. If I correctly remember, on several occasions the honourable Finance Minister said that the government was going to bring a Bill in respect of the undisclosed foreign income and assets for the purpose of bringing back the black money into the country. My humble question to the Finance Minister and the MoS Finance here: Can you show us any single provision whereby and where under our government is empowered to bring back black money into the country itself?

Baaton ke jaadu mein kuch nahi hota hai, saheb. Kaam karna hoga. Baaton ka jadoo toh bahut ho gaya. Vishwas toh 125 crore aadmi aap ko kiya tha. Ek paisa wapas nahi aaya.

Where is the promise of the Prime Minister that the black money would be brought back within 100 days and 15 lakh rupees would be given to every citizen of the country? He has gone beyond his promise. Sorry to say Sir, with all due respect to the honourable Prime Minister, unke baton mein jaadoo hai, kaam mein kuch nahi hain.

The provisions of this Bill are quasi-judicial in character. If no one discloses, then charge has to be framed, then proceeding has to be initiated. This takes a quasi-judicial character and when a penalty is involved it is a quasi-criminal character. Therefore, the charge to be farmed has to be established.

How can we establish the charges? Under Section 8(1B), you are saying, “enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of banking company and examining him on oath.”

If that is so, a person who stacks away any black money and keeps it in a foreign bank, unless the official from the foreign bank comes up with the documents, and gives evidence, how will you prove the charges? This is what Section 8(1B) says.

If someone has taken the money out of the country and deposited it in the foreign bank, information would not do. Because of the agreement some information coming from the foreign country would not do. It has to be proved. Each and every transaction has to be proved. Do you think that in all cases foreign bank officials would come and leak the evidence in the country? It is impractical.

This Act is all right for the purpose of publicity, for the purpose of doing things. For the purpose of achieving the political objective it is good. But come to the substance of it. How will you prove the charges unless you have evidence? If it is not legal evidence it cannot be done. And in the case of legal evidence one has to bring an official to the witness stand to prove it because the right to exam the effective person is there. How will you do it? This is the point so far as Section 8 itself.

Earlier, 12 times the voluntary disclosure scheme was brought in the country. This is not a new concept, it is an old one. In fact the in-built provisions of the Acts are akin to some of the provisions of the Income Tax Act itself. Nothing new, it is an old wine in a new bottle with a new name. We want to know exactly how much money was brought back under those voluntary disclosure schemes.

Sir, black money is generated in the country itself. Thereafter it is stashed away. Under this Act, what preventive measures have been taken by you to stop the generation of the black money? To curb black money you have to stop it at the threshold where it is being generated. How? This Act does not speak about that.  Sir unless it is stopped, unless it is prohibited, no good result will come.

Come up with a mechanism (we’ll appreciate it) specified under the law for stopping all sorts of black money, whether it is domestic or whether it is foreign. It has to be stopped.

Nobody knows yet the estimate of black money stashed away. Sir, I have been informed (subject to correction) in 2010 the Standing Committee on finance appointed three agencies to ascertain the amount of black money stashed away from the country. Such a report has not been disclosed as yet.

Sir, this Act doesn’t really have any teeth. If anybody discloses it is all right we can recover the money and impose 30% taxes. However if one doesn’t disclose, you don’t have any teeth to catch him. You are purely relying upon evidences which are in the foreign countries and not on the basis of the evidence here.

Do you really think a person who has a huge amount of black money will keep it in a nationalised bank here and transfer it via internet? Do you think a person who is keeping Rs 50 crore of black money will keep it in a bank anywhere in India in his account and transfer it within a minute? There are examples. A transaction is made here following which 50% is paid here and 50% is being paid in a foreign country. How can you catch this under invoicing?

For your political commitment, you want to establish that you are doing so many things. In effect, you are not doing anything. We will give you full support. You bring in more stringent provisions and we will support you whole-heartedly to prevent the generation of black money in the country.

But sorry Sir, with great respect I say that this bill has no teeth. It is only for the purpose of achieving some political goal.

Thank You Sir.

Black Money Bill is toothless: Trinamool in Lok Sabha

Speaking on behalf of the party in Lok Sabha, Chief Whip of Trinamool Congress in the House, Kalyan Banerjee today said that the Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of Tax) Bill, 2015 was toothless and would not not bring back black money to the country.

Kalyan Banerjee, who is also a senior advocate, said that the Bill only serves a political purpose and is toothless legally. “Do you think a person who has black money will keep it in a nationalised bank and then transfer it over the internet?” he asked.

He advised the government that the time for words was gone and it was now time to act. He reminded the Centre of their promises of bringing back black money within 150 days.

Kalyan Banerjee also pointed out that this quasi-judicial Bill has no provisions to prevent the generation of black money within the country. Calling the Bill “old wine in a new bottle” he said the provisions of the Bill were akin to the IT Act.

Urging the government to ” do something meaningful”, he promised of all support to prevent the stashing of black money in foreign banks.

 

Full transcript of Kalyan Banerjee’s speech

Saugata Roy speaks on the Appropriation Act (Repeal) Bill, 2015 | Full Transcript

Full Transcript

I thank the Minister for making the effort to bring this Bill. This is an example of how government work piles up and multiplies. Every Act that we pass in Parliament has to be printed in the central laws book. Not only does the government publish central law books but also private publishers publish central law books. Uselessly these Appropriation Acts are included.

Madam, as you know, no government can spend money out of the Consolidated Fund of India unless it is appropriated by a proper an Appropriation Act. The validation of the Appropriation Act is only for one year. At the end of the financial year the Appropriation Act ends.

Over the years there are four appropriations taken in the House. If you recollect Ma’am, one is the Vote-on-Account Appropriation. The second is the actual Appropriation. Then there is Railway Vote-on-Account Appropriation. Then there is the Railway Appropriation Bill. So, four appropriations are being done per year.

From 1950 all these appropriations are there in the Statute books and the thick central laws book that is published. Nobody cared to repeal them before. In 1998 there was a committee to study government functioning. They recommended that all this should be abolished or repealed. Then the Law Commission also said these laws must be repealed. A Standing Committee of the Rajya Sabha went into the mater. They recommended that there should be an automatic repeal clause at the end of the Appropriation Act.

Now, we have studied in the objects and reasons that the Minister has mentioned about Australia and UK. Australia has an automatic repeal clause. It’s a Commonwealth country. UK repeals them in parts from time to time. So far we are following the UK method in which we shall repeal clauses.

Many states come under the President’s rule. Up to 1976, before the 42nd amendment, the budgets of the states under President’s rule had also to be appropriated in the Parliament as a result of which those were also added. So, altogether there are 758 such Appropriation Acts out of which 11 are related to State Appropriation Acts.

Now we are going to repeal all this at one go. The Minister has earlier also taken some initiative in repealing outdated laws. You see the Indian Penal Code is from 1860. All our laws are from British era. There are Police Acts and hundreds of Acts which have become redundant. A study should be made or the Law Commission report should be sought for and these useless Acts should be repealed from our Statute books.

Ultimately Madam, the laws have to go online. If you go to a lawyer’s chamber he asks you for fees depending on how many law books are there in his chamber. There is no necessity for this. All the laws can go online. Anybody can have access without buying these costly law books.

I would like the Minister to simplify our laws; simplify the law making procedure and simplify the whole system so that the common man need not interact with the legal system through lawyers only. For simple laws the common man should know his rights.

I am glad that the Law Minister has started this initiative. I think in the coming days this archaic language of the laws would be done away with. Modern language should be brought in and all useless laws should be repealed from the statute books.

With these wprds, I support the Bill.

Saugata Roy opposes the introduction of Land Bill in Lok Sabha | Full Transcript

Full Transcript

Under rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure, I move to oppose the introduction of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlements (Amendment) Bill, 2015.

The Bill takes away the chapter on social impact assessment as well as the chapter on food security in case of certain land acquisitions. This Bill is against the interests of farmers and has been opposed by all opposition political parties and farmers’ organisations. Hence it should be opposed tooth and nail by everybody who has farmers’ interest at heart.

The Bill also takes away the right of consent of the farmers. Where 80% consent of the farmers was needed for land acquisition for a private party that has also been removed for certain land acquisitions. Madam, this Bill shows how a Bill should not be put. A Bill was passed in Parliament in 2013; even the BJP party had supported the Bill at that time. The government brings a second amendment and because of the majority they pass it in Parliament. The Lok Sabha passes it and it is not even taken up in Rajya Sabha. After the session is adjourned briefly, the government issues an ordinance. Then it has again brought a Bill to support it.

This tortuous process of legislation is something that should not be happening. We feel unhappy that steps have been taken by the government against the farmers. The steps are being taken by the government to run the country by an ‘Ordinance Raj’. This is a second time an ordinance has been introduced.

Hence Madam, with all the force at my command I oppose the introduction of this anti-farmer Bill which takes away from the farmers, their own right to give consent for their land acquisition. It also takes away their right to have a social impact assessment on their land acquisition and also the minimum provisions for ensuring food security.

We had opposed even in 2013 when the government had imposed the 80% consent clause. Trinamool Congress had said that we want 100% consent of farmers for land acquisition for private parties as we had done during the Singur agitation.

It has been a matter of principle and a matter of faith for our party and we shall continue to oppose any attempts to tweak the Land Acquisition Bill in favour of the big businesses which this government is trying to cater to.

TMC opposes the introduction of Land Bill in Lok Sabha

Trinamool Congress today vociferously opposed the introduction of the Land Bill in Lok Sabha. Speaking on behalf of the party, Saugata Roy said Trinamool was always opposed to anti-farmer legislation.

Citing the party’s role in Singur land agitation, Saugata Roy said this Land Bill is favourable for big businesses and was against the interest of farmers. “The Bill does not have provisions for social security assessment. It has no provision for food security,” he said.

He accused the government of ruling through Ordinance Raj.

Speaking after him, leader of the party in Lok Sabha, Sudip bandyopadhyay said that in 2013 Trinamool was the only party to vote against the UPA’s land bill. He said the current Bill does not have any provision for taking consent of farmers.

Sugata Bose speaks on the Land Boundary Agreement Bill in Lok Sabha | Full Transcript

Full Transcript

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir,

I rise to support, on my own behalf and on the behalf of the All India Trinamool Congress, the 119th Constitution Amendment Bill, which after an amendment is passed will become our 100th Constitution Amendment.

At the outset I would like to congratulate our Hon’ble External Affairs Minister for bringing this historical legislation before this House, and also making a statesman like speech in the opening of this discussion and debate.

Our External Affairs Minister referred to the Radcliff Award of 1947. The roots of the problem that we are going to solve in this Parliament later today go back to the tragic partition of 1947. The irony of that partition was captured best by the poet WH Auden in his poem Partition where he wrote about Radcliff. This is what he had written-

Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission having never set his eyes on this land he was called to partition,

Time they had briefed him in London was short,

It’s too late for mutual consideration or rational debate.

The only solution now lies in separation.

He got down to work, on the task of settling the fate of millions,

The maps at his disposal were out of date and the census returns almost certainly incorrect.

But there was no time to check them,

No time to inspect the contested areas.

The weather was frightfully hot and dysentery constantly kept him on the trot,

But in seven weeks it was done,

The frontiers were decided, a continent,

For better or worse was divided.

The next day he sailed for England,

Where he quickly forgot the case as a good lawyer must.

Return he would not afraid as he told the club that he might get shot.

 

Radcliff was not a good surgeon; partition was often referred to as a surgical operation. Not only did it bring misery to the people on either side of the lines that were drawn on 1947, but like a bad surgeon, he left swabs inside the patient. These were the enclaves that are going to be exchanged now, today, the Chitmahals as we call in local parlance in West Bengal.

As I speak today, my mind goes back to 1971, a date to conjure with in South Asian history. I was merely a high school student, not even in college. I used to go with my pediatrician father, Dr Sisir Kumar Bose to the Bongaon border where millions of refuges had come from what was then, the eastern wing of Pakistan. I had seen poverty in Kolkata but I had never seen the kind of human misery I witnessed in 1971 in the refugee camps around the Bongaon town. But there was something else, I also used to visit the Netaji Field Hospital in a village called Bakchara where the brave soldiers of the Bangladesh’s Mukti Bahini used to be brought across the border and public spirited doctors surgeons from Kolkata would operate upon them, that is the only time in my Life that I have seen operations being conducted in the open. There was also not any saline, I have seen ‘daber Jol’ or coconut water being used in place of saline and these Mukti Jodhas sacrificed their all.

Our Indian soldiers made huge sacrifices. What we have witnessed in 1971 was a glorious freedom struggles against one of the most brutal military crackdowns in modern history. After the victory of December 16, 1971, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahaman came back and I remember that on January 17, 1972, my father met him in Dhaka.

What was the border like? He just drove across in an ambulance carrying medical supplies for newly independent Bangladesh. That was the kind of border we saw in 1971. People wanted to help each other to lead a life of dignity.

Then of course in 1974, as our External Affairs Minister has referred to, the historic agreement was made between Bangabandhu Sk Mujibur Rahaman and our great prime minister Indira Gandhi. And it is a pity that 41 years have passed before this parliament could ratify that agreement.

Today the historic words of Bangabandhu’s 7 March address are ringing in my ears. He said, “Prottek ghore ghore durgo gore tolo, rokto jokhon diyechi, rokto aro debo, ei desher manushere mukto koriya chariyabo inshallah”, and he brought freedom to the people of Bangladesh. He offered to give more sacrifice in blood so that the people of East Bengal could be free.

I had the privilege of meeting Prime Minister Sheik Hasina when they were giving an award to my father posthumously just two years ago. What is really positive, what is really historic about this Bill is the fact that in this Bill carefully balanced, and we are protecting and promoting, the national interest, the states’ interest and the human interest.

The national interest because this Bill, once it is passed later today by this House, will bring about a revolutionary transformation in the relations between India and Bangladesh and I agree with the External Affairs Minister that we will be able to rekindle the spirit of 1971 and after that when you go on to ask the people of Bangladesh and the Government of Bangladesh for trade and transit facilities, they will respond to you in a positive manner. So, national interest is supreme.

I know that earlier this week there was a little temptation to falling prey to narrow party, partisan interests. But what is important today is that the people of Assam also rose to the occasion and the temptation was resisted. National interest was put above party, political interest.

Secondly, the states’ interest was protected. It was a real privilege for me to work in the Standing Committee of external affairs. In the unanimous report that we tabled in this House on the December 1, 2014, we protected the states’ interest. This is what we said about the earlier history, “closer consultations at the highest political level between the Central Government and State Government would have been desirable. The committee while appreciating the efforts to keep the state governments on board, would suggest the Government to effectively coordinate with them in all matters and resolve the lacuna if any related to the actual implementation of the accord on the ground.”

And I am very glad, am truly happy. I have to tell the External Affairs Minister that she has conducted consultations at the highest political level as we had wanted and she has spoken several times to our leader, the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee. We had also said the committee that the Central Government and the State Government of West Bengal will arrive at a consensus on the issue related to the rehabilitation package.

All the humanitarian issues should be resolved in advance including assistance from the Central Government in this regard. And I trust as External Affairs Minister assured on the floor of this House that the rehabilitation package which has been sent to her by the Government of West Bengal, led by the Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on the December 6, 2014, will be available to the State so that we can build infrastructure and also give a true life of dignity to those in the enclaves who have been leading a miserable existence for the last 67 years. That is the most important aspect of this Bill. We are protecting the human interest.

What we are going to do today is going to be a solution of intractable problem. A solution that is going to be found in the spirit of insaniat. Under the sign of insaniat human beings are taking precedence over territory, small amounts, small pieces of territory that are only going to be notionally exchanged between the two suffering states of India and Bangladesh.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I would like to say that sometimes I hear certain justifications for this agreement and I can understand that the ruling party, in order to satisfy their recalcitrant constituents in a certain province, may often have to make those kinds of arguments. I often hear that this particular piece of legislation and the final settlement of the land boundary between India and Bangladesh will help us resolve the problem of illegal emigration of smuggling across the borders and so on. Now that may well be a by-product of settlement that we are going to reach with Bangladesh. But let us remember that this historic piece of legislation is actually meant for the benefit of the law abiding citizens of India and Bangladesh.

Once the entire boundary is demarcated, I would like to see that innocent law abiding citizens of India and Bangladesh should be able to cross the border with dignity and I would urge our External Affairs Minister to have consultations with the Home Minister so that a whole series of integrated check posts can be set up along the India-Bangladesh border.

We want ordinary people to be able to cross without difficulty. We want music to flow across the border that separates to Bengals. We want theater groups from the two Bengals to come to each other and to have their performances. I have spent a lot of time as a student in Bangladesh going about all the districts, work in district record rooms and I have seen that how much people of Bangladesh admire Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, Sarat Chandra Bose and Netaji subhash Chandra Bose. I have seen the best performance of DL Roy’s Shah Jahan play on a stage in Dhaka. Not on this side in Calcutta even though we have great theater personalities and theater groups in West Bengal, and some of them are now actually belong to our party the All India Trinamool Congress.

So, I would like to say that let us gift this historic piece of legislation to the people of two Bengals and also to someone whose birth anniversary pochishe-e-boishakh we are going to celebrate all over the country in two days time. He wrote the national anthem of our two countries India and Bangladesh. All the songs that he wrote during the Swadeshi movement of 1905 were inspirational for the muktijoddhas of Bangladesh in 1971.

Bangladesher hriday hote kokhon aponi, tumi ki oporup rupe bahir hole janani, ogo maa tomay dekhe dekhe ankhi na phire’.

We have always envisioned our State Bengal and also Bharatbarsha as the mother.

In those days we used to recite Jibanananda Das’s poetry – “Banglar much ami dekhiyachi tai prithibir rup khujite jahi na aar”. That means we have seen Bengal’s face that is why we don’t need go out and find beauty in the rest of the world.

So that is what I am being reminded of here today and finally I would simply like to say that let us remember that during the hay day of the Swadeshi movement Rabindranath Tagore wrote a very beautiful song- “Amra milechi aaj mayer daake” – that means we have actually gathered here at the call of the mother. We are answering the call of the mother in passing this historic legislation in the Lok Sabha today.

It is such a great moment to see that we have risen above all political party differences. We have protected the national interest, the states’ interest and the human interest today.

So let us, as has happened in the Rajya Sabha, rise to the full stature of this House and unanimously pass the Constitution Amendment Bill and let the message go out to the whole of South Asia that we want peace of development for the poor who live all across this great subcontinent.

Thank you Deputy Speaker Sir.

 

Trinamool’s Sugata Bose hails Land Boundary Agreement Bill as historic in LS

After Rajya Sabha, Trinamool today lent its support to the 119th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2013 in Lok Sabha thus paving the way for land boundary agreement with Bangladesh.

Speaking on behalf of the party, Sugata Bose delivered an emotive speech, thanking everyone for rising above partisan politics for national interest, state interest and human interest.

Reminiscing about his first-hand experience of Muktijuddho in 1971, Sugata Bose rued the fact that it took 41 years to ratify the agreement signed by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibar Rahman and Indira Gandhi.

Quoting Tagore and Jibanananda Das, the eminent historian said, “What we are doing today will be a solution for a intractable problem. Let the message go out to the rest of South Asia we want peace and development for the downtrodden.”

Click here for the full transcript