Tag: Sukhendu Sekhar Roy

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on problems of Jute Industry | Transcript

Posted on | by admin2 | Leave a Comment on Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on problems of Jute Industry | Transcript

Sir, my notice was for only one issue. Therefore, I would like to speak on that. I have given notice only on one issue, on the issue of jute. Sir, Shri Tapan Kumar Sen has raised three issues. But I have given notice only for one issue. I will speak in Bengali. I have given my notice to speak in Bengali in advance. Therefore, I should be allowed to speak.

 

Hon’ble Sir, I shall speak particularly on the issue of jute industry. Jute is produced not only in West Bengal, but also in other states of North-eastern and Eastern India, like Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Tripura, and in Andhra Pradesh in Southern India. There are about 79 jute factories in India. Most of these factories are functioning, but it is unfortunate that for the last few years, Government of India have been steadily diluting the Jute Packaging Material Act. First of all, they kept cement out of the jute packaging list; it was followed by fertilizer, and now food packaging has been excluded – the latter being diluted to 80 per cent from the compulsory 100 per cent. In case of sugar industry, it was drastically reduced to 20 per cent from the earlier 100 per cent. It was a dilution of 80 per cent.

And now the ill-famous Rangarajan Committee has recommended that the whole sugar industry should be kept out of the compulsory jute packaging. It is affecting all the jute factories. About 40 lakh jute farmers and 4 lakh jute industrial workers across the country have been suffering due to this decision. These farmers and workers belonging to the minority community, SC/ST and OBC will starve and die.

Sir, this is a matter of national importance. It is an issue of national importance. I must tell all. Only one minute I am asking from you. We should think about our environment. The government has surrendered to the plastic lobby. Plastic is an element that adversely affects our environment; on the other hand, jute is a natural fibre. A natural fibre like jute is not being provided adequate protection; rather plastic is being introduced into food packaging. This will result in life-threatening diseases like cancer. So I am demanding that from the new government that the Jute Packaging Material Act should be appropriately implemented and the dilution of jute packaging should be forthwith withdrawn.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address | Transcript

Posted on | by admin2 | Leave a Comment on Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address | Transcript

Sir, while participating in the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address moved by Shri Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi yesterday, I would like to raise a few points on behalf of my party, All India Trinamool Congress, in addition to the points made by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Derek O’ Brien yesterday.

Janadesh ke bare mein pehle hi bahut charcha ki gayi hai. Kisi ne bola ki janadesh sada and paisa yatnu hi hi bahut kharab hi chiz hai. Hum nahi mante ki janadesh ki kambakht chiz hoti hai. Janesh ko hum sirf mante nahi hai, balki hum isko pranam karte hai. Janadesh chahke bhi hum paksh mein hai. Lekin janadesh humare lokantar ke adhar hai.

And the will of the people is supreme in a democracy and all of us bow down before the will of the people. Lekin jo janadesh humne is baar dekha gujrat ke arab sagar se lahar uthi aur woh lahar ab Bengal ki khadi tak bahuchti hai, toh backwater ban gayi.

Vindhya, Himachal, Yamuna, Ganga, Gujarat, Maratha har jagah ek tarah ka jan aadesh dikhayi diya hai. Dravid, Utkal aur Banga yahan humne dusri hi tarah ka janadesh dekha hai, lekin dono hi jan adesh hai, aur dono hi jan adesh ko humein manna parega. Sir, now I shift to paragraphs 7, 14 and 25 together of the President’s Address.  Pichle dino humne jaribi hatao, inclusive growth, sustainable growth ke bare mein bahut suna. Hindustan ki chitra aaj kya hai? Jab Rashtrapti ki jo abhibhashan hai poverty elimination ki baat kar rahe hai, toh aazadi ke 67 saal baad humari asliyat kya hai? Hidustan kahan par khadha hai?

I would like to refer to UNDP’s Human Report published last year. Sir, 53.7 Indians live in multidimensional poverty and another 16.4 per cent are vulnerable to multidimensional poverty. We share our position with equalitarian feeling, a country the name of which is hardly known to the people. Azadi ke 67 saal baad bhi humari arthik sthiti yeh hai. Sir, the Press-release of World Bank published on 10th of April this year says that the total number of the poorest of the poor who cannot earn even 1.25 dollar a day is 1.2 billion, that is, world’s poorest of the poor and one-third of them, that is, 40 crores of the world’s poorest of the poor population live in India.

That also constitutes one-third of our total population. Yeh haalat hai humri. As per State of the World’s Mothers 2013 report, in India, 3,09,300 children die on the very first day of their birth. And, this is 29 per cent of the world’s first-day mortality rate of the children. India ranks top among all other countries.

Sir, aazadi ke 67 saal bad bhi humari yeh haalat hai. This is what we have achieved in the 67 years of our Independence. While this is the situation, on the other hand, if we go through the report published in today’s Times of India, the Boston Consulting Report, it says that India had 1,75,00 millionaire households in 2013, ranking 15th in the world, and is projected to become the 7th wealthiest nation by 2018. Millionaire, of course, is in terms of dollars. Such a huge economic inequality persists in our country, notwithstanding what has been stated in the Preamble of our Constitution – justice, social, political, economic. We have forgotten everything. We have given a goodbye to all these things. It has been established beyond doubt that the major share of the benefits of the so-called economic reforms, after the liberalization policy, has gone to the kitty of the richest people of this country and not to the poorest of the poor people of this country. This is a hard reality that we are confronted with. I think, the new Government has a duty, a paramount duty, to have a re-look, to re-visit the so-called economic reforms of the liberalization policy, which is being pursued since 1991, for almost 23-24 years. The Government must try to initiate steps to reform the reforms. Reforming the reforms is the only step that is required in the present economic situation of this country, and which has been adopted by some of the Latin American countries. Sir, in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream, we have read the carnival of aristocrats. Shakespeare has described the carnival of aristocrats. Here, we do not want to see the carnival of the crony capitalists. I am sorry to say all these things because this has been our experience, bad experience. We assure of our best cooperation to the new Government for all upcoming poverty elimination programmes and all programmes which are in public good. But whenever there is any attempt on the part of the new Government to adopt any policy which is otherwise anti-people, we shall oppose it tooth and nail. This is the role of a responsible opposition and we shall play that role of a responsible opposition for all days to come. Sir, in para 9 of the President’s Address, the urbanization – the new nomenclature – is nothing but socalled ‘Gujarat Model’. According to the statistics of the United Nations, India’s urban population forecast is 631 million, and it will account 41.8 per cent of our total population by 2030.

But, what about the measures to be adopted in regard to pollution in the cities and towns? There is no whisper about it in the President’s Address. In 2012, India was the third largest polluted country in the world. What measures would be taken by this Government in this regard? There is no mention about it.

I would urge upon the Government to come out with a definite plan and programme on this issue. Sir, in paragraph 20 of the President’s speech, the slogan of cooperative federalism has been raised. We salute cooperative federalism. My Leader, Ms Mamata Banerjee, is the champion for the cause of federalism in this country. As per Article 1 of the Constitution of India, India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States. Therefore, it is a Union of States, not a unitary State. We respect this Article. This is an article of faith to us.

Sir, in the recent past, we have seen that the successive Governments at the Centre set up the Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations and no uncanny respect has been given to the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission which submitted their Reports in 2010. We are in the middle of 2014. They have been sent to cold storage. There is no murmur about them. I would urge upon the new Government to bring out the Punchhi Commission Report from the cold storage, go through it and try to implement the recommendations in letter and spirit. Sir, I would like to quote two, three lines from the report of the Commission on Centre- State Relations, that is, the Sarkaria Commission, and reiterated by the Punchhi Commission. I quote: “When the emphasis is on the social justice, there is no escape from realignment of resources in favour of the States because services and the programmes which are at the core of a more equitable social order come within the purview of the States under the Constitution.” This is the recommendation of the Sarkaria and the Punchhi Commissions. Sir, this is a Constitutional scheme which must be taken care of. If you want to have cooperative federalism, my point in this context is whether the Government is thinking to eliminate the vintage-Gadgil formula.

Whether this new Government will adhere to the demands of the States for 50-50 sharing of the resources and revenues. Sir, my point is, as per Articles 268, 269, 270, 275, 280, 282 and 293, Finance Commission is the only Constitutional authority to look into financial relations between the Centre and the States. But what has happened? The Planning Commission, which was set up by an executive order, has emerged as the most robust extra Constitutional centre of authority over the years. We demand that the Finance Commission must have a permanent status and, if necessary, an appropriate legislation should be made in this regard. This is my humble suggestion to the new Government. Sir, in para 23 of the President’s speech, black money has been talked about. There cannot be two opinions about it.

But what about those big companies which have diverted 13,000 crores of rupees during the past three years violating external commercial borrowing scheme? What about the on-going inquiries by the Income-tax Department against 498 Indian entities, operating from the tax havens like British Virgin Island, Vox Island and Cayman Islands? Therefore, the entire net of the black money is to be unearthed and it should be possessed by the Government of India only and none else.

Sir, paragraph 35 of the President’s speech says that. I want a concrete assurance from the Government that the compensation towards Central sales tax should be paid before implementing the GST in the country. What about the national security? What will be the role of the DRDO? I would like to know whether there will be any existence of DRDO because even the software will be manufactured by the foreign investors. It is reported in the newspapers. I don’t know about it. That should be clarified. सर, expedited.

Finally Sir, I would like to quote the concluding sentences. Two lines only. I am concluding. I will not even take two minutes. Sir, in fine, I would like to quote the concluding sentences of the book titled ‘Undercover Economist’. It is authored by internationally-famous writer Tim Harford. It says in concluding lines and I quote, “Haste with the risks of trial and error, should you and I try to experiment and adopt more than we do? What price would we pay in our quest to succeed?” Hence, the new Government must be very cautious in its quest to succeed. We wish it all success. But the Government must be very cautious in its quest to succeed because the road is not rosy as I have tried to emphasize the situation. With these words, I conclude. Thank you, Sir, once again for giving me this opportunity.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on the Lokpal Bill | Transcript

Posted on | by admin2 | Leave a Comment on Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on the Lokpal Bill | Transcript

Sir, I thank you for giving me the chance. Our Party, All-India Trinamool Congress, all along was in favour of a stringent law to wipe out corruption, particularly at the highest level. We are happy to note that this Bill has been introduced after a long tug of war on different issues and after a lapse of four decades of formulation of the original Bill, though in a different form. Sir, this Bill is now set to see the light of the day, but had it been enacted earlier, perhaps, the country would not have witnessed the series of scams like Adarsh Awas, Commonwealth Games, 2G, coalgate, helicoptergate and what not. Although it is better late than never, I am sorry for the fact that it was not enacted at the appropriate moment.

 

In any event, Sir, my Party had all along advocated for a Lokayukta institution at the State level and I would like to remind the hon. Members, through you, that in the winter session of the year 2011, we had moved dozens of amendments for deletion of the portion which reflected about the establishment of Lokayukta together with Lokpal in the Central Bill. At that point of time, the Government did not accede to our request, although our demand was supported by majority of the parties and there were, perhaps, no two opinions about the fact that if the Central Act provides for a legislation for Lokayukta in the Central Act, it will affect the federal character of the Constitution. And, I would remind again that on different occasions, this Government has tried to encroach upon the authorities of the State Governments and State institutions in different ways. But Article 1 of the Constitution, if we go through it properly, states that India is a Union of States; it is not a unitary State. Since it is a Union of States, the sacred feature of federalism must be respected.

 

Us samay to hum sarkar ke sath they / Hum sarkar key sath they, isliye humne sarkar se appeal bhi kii, lekin sarkar ne use mana nehi / Mana nehi / Idhar subhah se mein bahut sangeet shun raha hoon, isliye mujhe bhi Md. Rafi saab ek purana geet yaad aa gaya / uske ek-do line mein bolna chahta hoon / Hamara party ka maksad aisa tha, humne socha aur bola bhi ki –

 

“ Chale the sath milkar, challenge sath milkar,

Tumhe rokna parega, meri awaz shunkar“

 

Lekin unhone meri awaz ko nehi shuna, who nehi ruke, to hum eek nirnay lena para, kyunki ek ke bad ek janbirodhi kanoon aur nirnay is sarkar ne liye, jo is desh ki aam janta ke khilaf the / Is liye hamne inka tyag kiya, hamesha ke liye tyag kiya / Aab shayed who roh rahe hai aur soch rahe hai ki “ Sathi re, tere bina bhi kya jeena “ khair, yeh toh filmi geeton ki baat ho gayi /

 

Now, I would like to endorse this Bill in view of the fact that there is no such provision in this Bill accepting that the State Legislatures would enact appropriate legislation for establishment of Loyayukta at the State level.

 

Some of the hon. Members were suggesting that there should be a model for that. We are opposed to that, Sir, because already in different States, Lokayukta Act exists. In some of the States, there is Lokayukta Act, and, in some of the States, for example, in my State, there is no such existence of any Lokayukta institution. For the last 34 years, the previous Governments could not form any Lokayukta institution in our State but we are ready to do that. But if there are different types of Lokayukta legislation in different States, let it be continued, or, if you want uniformity, then, all the existing Acts should be given a go-by. Is it possible in the given situation?

 

Therefore, I support the Bill. The portion which has been mentioned in clause 63 is alright according to us. Now, I want to put a serious question on clause 3(2) of the Bill although we have not given any amendment this time because we do not want to carry a message to any quarter that we are opposed to this Bill. We are not. From day one, we are in favour of the Lokayukta. From day one, we are in favour of Lokpal but in the manner it was moved, and, in the form, it was tried to be enacted, we opposed to that only.

 

Now, Sir, if we look at clause 3(2), we will find that there is a provision that Lokpal shall consist of a Chairperson, who is or has been a Chief Justice of India or is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. Why all the time are such authorities headed by Judges only? It has become a Judges’ breeding ground all the time, be it Central Administrative Tribunal, State Administrative Tribunal, Competition Commission and so on and so forth. All these institutions are headed by Judges. Why should it be a breeding ground for the Judges and retired Judges? This point crept in my mind again when I went through a reported incident of sexual harassment of a law intern by a former Judge of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I would suggest the Government, particularly, the hon. Law Minister to think and re-think over the issues in the coming days. I do not know whether he will be there or not, whether this Government will be there or not but whoever will be the Law Minister, whichever Party forms the Government, they should have a serious look into this.

 

Sir, now, I come to clause 3(4). It says, “The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State.” Why? Already, sub-clause 2 of clause 3 speaks about who will be the Chairman and who will be the Member. Then, what is the need of saying that an elected representative of the Parliament or the Legislature shall not be either the Chairperson or the Member of the Lokpal?

 

According to me, it is a stigma on the elected representatives of Parliament and Legislatures, and Panchayats and Municipalities also. It has been categorically stated in sub-clause 4 of clause 3 that a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislature or a member of a Panchayat or Municipality shall not be Chairperson or a Member. It is a stigma as if all the elected representatives of the people are corrupt, as if all the elected representatives indulge in offences involving moral turpitude. This is not a fact. It is true that the people are losing faith in the political leadership because of the monumental scams one after another. But that does not necessarily mean that allpolitical parties or political leaders are corrupt or involved in offences involving moral turpitude. I would request the hon. Law Minister to remove this portion. There is no need for this because this Bill has already provided for as to who a Chairperson or a Member will be. All the time political leadership is treated as a sacrificial goat and others as holy cows. What is going on in our defence? What is going on in our bureaucracy? What is going on in the fourth estate? We have seen that.

 

Recently, a book has been published titled ‘The Siege.’ What the book says is that there is a honey bee who is divulging our secret and confidential defence documents to foreign countries. I want to know whether any inquiry has been instituted or is being conducted. There is no rejoinder from the Government authorities against the author of the book or against the contents of the book. What kind of state are we living in? A foreign author writes a book and says that our defence institutions are doing such anti-national activities and the Government is keeping mum. And here is a Lokpal. Bring any Lokpal or Dharmpal, we don’t have any objection to any Lokpal or Dharmpal. But that Lokpal or Dharmpal should also look into such kind of things which are appearing here and people across the world have come to know about the situation prevailing in India.

 

Sir, I would like to point out another clause. It is clause 45. It talks about undisclosed assets. It says, “.. such assets shall, unless otherwise proved, be presumed to belong to the public servant and shall be presumed to be assets acquired by corrupt means;” Sir, I think the word ‘presumed’ should be replaced with the word ‘treated’ because the law does not prescribe any presumption. Law does not prescribe any assumption or presumption. The word should not be ‘presumed’ but it should be ‘treated.’ I would request the hon. Law Minister to kindly consider whether the word ‘presumed’ should be replaced with the word ‘treated’ or not. This is another humble suggestion.

 

Sir, finally, I would like to thank the Government for accepting our suggestions as far as Lokayukta is concerned. Therefore, we wholeheartedly support this Bill.

 

Thank you, Sir.