Kgg-mp/1A/11. 00 The House met at eleven of the clock, mr. Chairman in the Chair obituary reference to justice V. R. KRISHNA IYER mr. Chairman



Download 1.96 Mb.
Page7/15
Date conversion15.02.2016
Size1.96 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   15

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please try to conclude.

श्री के. सी. त्यागी: सर, मैं खत्म कर रहा हूँ। हिंदुस्तान के अंदर जो गरीब गुरबा लोग हैं, जो किसान लोग हैं, एक भी बार उनके लिए इस तरह का आपकी तरफ से प्रयास नहीं हुआ। मैं बधाई देना चाहता हूँ, अकेली बिहार की सरकार है, जिसने इस काले कानून को मानने से मना कर दिया है और हम अपने प्रदेश के किसानों को तीन सौ रुपए क्विंटल चावल पर और तीन सौ रुपए क्विंटल गेहूं पर सब्सिडी दे रहे हैं। देश के अंदर सबने मना कर दिया। ऐसा कभी नहीं हुआ। सीतारमण जी हैं, अब इनकी अंग्रेजी और आनन्द जी की अंग्रेजी ऐसी है कि हमारे हिंदी के तर्क कमजोर पड़ जाते हैं। मैं आपसे यह कहना चाहता हूँ कि आपने इस पर हमें समय कम दिया और मैंने मंत्री महोदय से निवेदन किया था, मैंने प्रधान मंत्री जी को चिट्ठी लिखी कि डब्लूटीओ में जाने से पहले सभी अपोजीशन पार्टीज के नेताओं को बुलाइए। यह कोई आपके अकेले का काम नहीं है। How can you sell the country? देश में जितने भी किसान संगठन हैं, जितने भी स्टेकहोल्डर्स हैं,...(व्यवधान)... भारतीय जनता पार्टी के जितने भी किसान संगठन हैं, मैं मुबारकवाद देना चाहता हूँ, स्वदेशी जागरण मंच, भारतीय मजदूर संघ, भारतीय किसान संघ, ये इनकी आर्थिक और नई नीति के खिलाफ समूचे देश में संघर्ष कर रहे हैं। नागपुर से हमारे साथी बैठे होंगे, नागपुर के अंदर चार दिन से कृषि उत्पादक संगठन, किसानों को मूल श्रृंखला में जोड़ने वाला संगठन, हालांकि जया जी छोटी किसान हैं, इनका दो या तीन एकड़ ही फैजाबाद में, बाराबंकी में जमीन है, अगर ये इनके पुराने मित्रों से बची रहीं तो शायद यह बची रह जाएगी, ...

श्री उपसभापति: त्यागी जी, खत्म कीजिए। Now, please conclude

श्री के. सी. त्यागी: सर, मैं खत्म कर रहा हूँ। मेरा यह कहना है कि जो डब्लूटीओ की शर्तें हैं, जिनमें तीन का मैंने जिक्र किया। नंबर वन - दाम नहीं बढ़ेंगे, नहीं बढ़ाए। नंबर टू- सब्सिडी खत्म करो, खत्म कर दी और नंबर थ्री- पीडीएस का कोटा खत्म करो, 25 परसेंट पर आ गया। तो आनन्द शर्मा जी और मंत्री महोदया किन बातों से बाली एग्रीमेंट, बाली एग्रीमेंट करते हैं, क्या इसमें यह था कि समय बढ़ा दिया जाए? आपने कलेंडर ईयर 1986 माना है। उस समय आपकी सैलरी कितनी थी? मैं जब एमपी बनकर आया था, हम दोनों साथ आए थे, तब हमें 1985-86 में दस हजार रुपए महीना मिलते थे। अब आप किसानों के लिए तो कलेण्डर ईयर 1986 मानोगे और अपने मुनाफों के लिए 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 मांगोगे। तो इस देश की कृषि बरबाद होने जा रही है। मैं इन दायें-बायें बाजू वाले मित्रों से कहना चाहता हूं ... (व्यवधान)... परमानेंट एड्रैस उनके हैं, जिनका वी.पी.. लिखा है। ग्राम व डाकखाना जिनका लिखा है। वे हमारे अकाली दल के दोस्त थे। ये हमारे साथ इन चीजों के लिए लड़ते थे और जब से उधर गए हैं या इन्होंने हमें इधर फेंक दिया, तब से हमारे और इनके बीच में भी तकरार हो गई है। तो जिनके वी.पी.. हैं, यानी विलेज एंड पोस्ट ऑफिस वालों से मेरा निवेदन है कि यह काला कानून है, जैसे अंग्रेजों के टाइम में कानून आए थे, यह देश की खेती और किसानों को बरबाद करेगा। मैं समय रहते हुए, चेतावनी देना चाहता हूं। बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद। ...(व्यवधान)...

(समाप्त)



श्री बलविंदर सिंह भुंडर : सर, किसानों के मामले में हम सभी इनके साथ हैं।
(2N/RG-RPM पर आगे)

-KLG/RG/2.55/2N

SHRI SUKHENDU SEKHAR ROY (WEST BENGAL): Sir, first of all, what I am going to submit should not be taken as a criticism of or as opposition to the Government’s policy, but it should be treated as a concern because, I think, it is a national concern. With the advent of WTO and the way the expansionism of economies of developed countries is being perpetuated through WTO, it is very difficult for developing countries like India to withstand the onslaught. So far as the clarification made by the hon. Minister is concerned, before her, Shri Anand Sharma, when he was the hon. Minister, tried to make some headway. He made some headway but not to the extent that it was expected. Similarly, even after the hon. Commerce Minister, Nirmala Sitaramanji, doing overtime, the expected result is very much gloomy, and I am giving two or three points to that effect.

Though the present Agreement with the U.S.A. is an improvement over the WTO, the Bali Agreement, there are many issues remaining which are not good for India. For instance, the formula for calculating support for public stockholding called ‘food security’ is unreasonably loaded against the developing countries. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Tyagi, when we look at the 1986-88 prices, – we are in 2014 – in 1986-88, the price of foodgrains had gone up manifold. Now if the Government of India raises it to Rs.1,400 per quintal to farmers for procurement of wheat, and the price of wheat was Rs.385 in 1985-86, then, what will be the consequence? It will be assumed that the Government is giving a subsidy of Rs.1,015 per quintal of wheat. Thus there is a need to change the WTO rules. But this price mechanism cannot work. This is my first point.

The second point is that the member countries, through a process of consultation, will also have the right to scrutinize the Food Programmes of India or, for that matter, of any country. So, the member countries will invade into India to assess the fall-out of the price mechanism and, in case of any breach, the same could be disputed. All these provisions of the Agreement clearly suggest that internal policy matters within India will be subject to foreign scrutiny and, hence, add up to erosion of our sovereignty. This is highly objectionable, Sir. This is a matter of great concern for us that India’s sovereignty will be compromised in that way.

Thirdly, Sir, the final Draft agreed in Bali mandated developing countries to ensure various measures of trade facilitation. Now it is unfortunate that no cost assessment has been made by the Government about implementing the provisions of trade facilitation. What is happening is that by providing trade facilitation, imports from the rest of the world may flood India, further worsening the already difficult external payment position. This is another area of concern for India.

And, finally, in reality, this agreement reached by the BJP Government has, actually, eroded the sovereignty of the nation on the one hand and put a ceiling on the freedom of future regimes to announce any such food security programmes.

(Continued by SSS/2O)

SSS-MP/2O/3.00

SHRI SUKHENDU SEKHAR ROY (CONTD.): Because, in the Trade Facilitation Agreement that I have mentioned, the entire money will be cut from the prime allocation on health, on food and other areas and that will be adjusted with the trade facilitation arrangements. Therefore, Sir, I would submit and I would appeal to the hon. Commerce Minister to clarify these points in this august House so that the nation can have a clear picture on this issue. Thank you.

(Ends)


SHRI A. NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I would like to quote the great poet Bharatiyaar (*) That means even if a single person does not get food, the entire world must be destroyed. So, I hope the Central Government is taking proper steps to protect the Indian farmers. Now the general opinion is -- subject to correction and approval -- the WTO is helping the rich countries to exploit the poor countries. So, that impression must be removed. Now, because of World Trade Organisation, our Government is not able to

..................................................................................

* Hon. Member may please fill in.

provide subsidies to the farmers and they are not able to give relief to the needy people. In this context, I would like to mention one point that in Tamil Nadu, the Public Distribution System is functioning very well. Another important fact I would like to refer to is -- Amma Unavagam -- Amma Canteen that is providing quality food to the needy people. That is the brainchild of our Amma. I hope, like our Amma, the Central Government would protect the poor farmers and the poor people. Thank you, Sir.

(Ends)

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA (UTTAR PRADESH): Sir, I would not repeat what has already been said by all the Members. Instead of that, I will straightaway come to one clarification which I want to seek from the hon. Minister with respect to para 10. Para 10 says that “The General Council has also unequivocally agreed to delink the negotiations for a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security purposes from the agriculture negotiations on other issues under the Doha Development Agenda. This would ensure that the negotiations for a permanent solution would continue if the negotiations on such other issues are delayed.” Now, I would only like to ask the hon. Minister whether there is a special and any differential mechanism for the other issues and what these issues are. Are they industrial goods or the market excesses? I would request the hon. Minister to clarify this.

(Ends)


DR. E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I just want to quote US trade representative Michael Froman who read the statement after meeting the President and the Prime Minister of India. I am just quoting. “Efforts to put the TFA in place were dealt a setback in July, when a small group of countries, led by India, raised concerns about the status of the WTO’s work on food security issues and blocked consensus on implementing the TFA. We have overcome that delay and now have agreement with India to move forward with full implementation.” Further, in the last paragraph, in the Statement, he says, “This has been a good week for trade and the growth and jobs it supports here in the United States. The U.S. worked with China to achieve a breakthrough on the Information Technology Agreement, worked with India to move forward with the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, and worked with our TPP partners to bring the end of these landmark negotiations clearly into sight. Together, these will provide a major boost to the global trading system at a critical time in the world's economic recovery, a central focus of the upcoming G-20 Summit." This is the intention of USA. When Shri Anand Sharma was leading the team to Bali, 93 countries were supporting us and when we raised this issue in the Parliament, your negotiation deadline is going to be over. You are waiting for the clearance of the new Prime Minister. For one man’s clearance you have lost your time. Therefore, you have lost your friends. Finally, you end up with – I quote the US word – ‘small group of countries.’

(Contd. by NBR/2P)

-SSS/NBR-SC/2P/3.05.

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (CONTD.): You have come down from 93 countries to a 'small group of countries!' Now, there is no one else to support us in the WTO talks; we have to act only at the command from the USA. There is no doubt the USA's friendship is needed. But, we should not be at the command of the USA. We should not surrender our sovereignty to any country.

Secondly, Sir, in the name of public stockings and not taking the issues to the WTO's Dispute Resolution Forum, you are going to allow 75 per cent of Indian market to be flooded with agriculture produces from all other countries and you are going to make agriculturists in India to suffer. They are not going to have the competitive price. The flooding is going to happen, because the TFA allows you to have 'allowed tariff' and you are allowing in and out flow without any hesitation. Therefore, within a year, you are going to have a catastrophe on agriculturists in India. So, I would like to know from the hon. Minister in which way are you going to protect the interests of the agriculturists, their produce and also the labourers who are depending on agriculture. Thank you.

(Ends)

SHRI ANANDA BHASKAR RAPOLU (TELANGANA): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, this is the time know from the hon. Minister on her 19 point statement what are the escape channels and routes we have to come out of the complications of the cobweb -- चक्रव्यूह -- which is called the World Trade Organisation.

Our nation's GDP covered by trade is to the tune of 35 per cent. A great shift has taken place between 1950s and now. Sir, services are now having a greater role by almost 55 per cent. Those were the days in 1950s when agriculture was ruling the roost with 58 per cent. We are on the stronger side as far as services are concerned. We are authority in export of services. In the recent one decade, our export capacity in services has grown to 40 per cent. But, at this juncture, we are an infrastructure-deficit nation. We are having population which depends on agriculture to the tune of 50 per cent. Given the ground reality, it is quite impossible to have any sort of compromise on food security and agrarian platform. Still, we are yet to attain, as mentioned by our hon. Deputy Leader and our senior colleagues, Natchiappanji, them and are friendless. We are almost something like Abhimanyu in the पद्मव्यूह. In this चक्रव्यूह, how are you going to enlarge your capacity to come out of the escape channels without compromising interests, particularly agrarian interest, of our nation? This is the first clarification I wish to seek from the hon. Minister.

Besides that, Sir, we are having economic growth and we are getting complication not only from the WTO but also from the Multilateral Agreements and the FTAs. These complications are eating into the question of sovereignty of our nation. For that, even at global platforms, discussions are going on about the utility and the effectiveness of the WTO as far as agrarian sector is concerned. On this front, we are yet to attain the proper position since those were the great days of Argentina, Brazil and India -- ABI trio -- but, now, we are a loner. So, how this Abhimanyu -- India -- will come out of the complicated cobweb of the WTO? Thank you.

(Ends)


(FOLLOWED BY KGG/2Q)

-NBR-KGG-GS/2Q/3.10

SHRIMATI KANIMOZHI (TAMIL NADU): Sir, Peace Clause does not come without conditions. The Bali decision on public stockholding requires that countries using this facility should have provided and continue to provide, on an annual basis, information for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes. India’s food security programme under this would come under strict monitoring by the WTO. The Peace Clause also has conditions attached that the country will have to establish that food procurement programmes being protected don’t distort the world trade. It will be difficult for India to prove this when challenged by any other country. How do we protect our farmer subsidies from them and our food security programmes, and protect the local agriculture and food security? Thank you.

(Ends)


श्री भूपिंदर सिंह (ओडिशा): डिप्टी चेयरमैन सर, इस मुद्दे पर पिछली बार भी 5, अगस्त को जब मंत्री जी ने यहां बयान दिया था, उस वक्त भी चर्चा हुई थी। इस हाउस में जब चर्चा हुई थी तब कहा गया था कि हम एक कृषि प्रधान देश हैं। हमारा स्वाभिमानी किसान आज हमको इतना ज्यादा अनाज दे पाया है कि हमें आज किसी देश के सामने जाकर हाथ फैलाने की जरूरत नहीं है। इस मुद्दे पर, इस हाउस में सभी पार्टियों की एक राय है, वे चाहे आज सरकार के सदस्य हैं, सभी की एक राय है। इसी को लेकर हमने एक बात पूछी थी कि हम किस मुद्दे पर मिनिमम सपोर्ट प्राइस देते हैं? हमने आपका पिछली बार का स्टेटमेंट देखा था यूएसए में 80 परसेंट तक सब्सिडी किसानों को देते हैं, वे लोग 80 परसेंट तक अपने किसानों को सब्सिडी दे सकते हैं, लेकिन वे हमारे ऊपर सब्सिडी देने के लिए प्रतिबंध लगाते हैं, हमारे लिए hurdles तैयार करते हैं कि आप अपने किसानों को इससे ज्यादा सब्सिडी नहीं दे सकते।

सर, आज आपने हाउस में देखा होगा जब पेट्रोल और डीजल के ऊपर चर्चा चल रही थी। हमारा किसान जो भी फसल पैदा करता है, जो भी पैदावार करता है, उसकी वजह से हम देश की जरूरतों को पूरा कर पाते हैं। जब हम मिनिमम फूड सिक्योरिटी की बात करते हैं, तो वह भी किसानों की मेहनत के जरिए से हो पा रही है, उसमें हमारी कोई मेहनत नहीं है, इसमें हमारे लिए उनका सपोर्ट है। इसके लिए हम सब की एक ही दृष्टि होनी चाहिए। जब किसान रोता है, तो सारा देश रोता है और जब किसान हंसता है, तो पूरा हिन्दुस्तान हंसता है, जब किसान की रीढ़ टूटती है, तो पूरे देश की रीढ़ टूटती है, अगर देश की रीढ़ टूटती है, तो कोई सरकार भी नहीं रह पाती है और सरकार की भी रीढ़ टूट जाती है। इसीलिए मैं एक बार फिर से निवेदन करूंगा कि मिनिमम सपोर्ट प्राइस में जो इनपुट्स वे लोग आज देते हैं, उनकी इतनी ज्यादा कीमत बढ़ गई है, वह चाहे फर्टिलाइजर हो, चाहे डीजल हो, चाहे केरोसीन हो, चाहे ऑयल हो, चाहे सीड्स हो। डिप्टी चेयरमैन साहब, हम एग्रीकल्चरल लेबर की बात तो कल करेंगे, परन्तु इसके बारे में, मैं यही निवेदन करना चाहता हूं कि सरकार को आज जो मेंडेट मिला है, जब आप WTO में अपने देश का तिरंगा लेकर बैठते हैं, तो उस वक्त वहां कोई पार्टी जाकर नहीं बैठती है, किसी पोलिटकल पार्टी का रिप्रेजेंटेटिव वहां जाकर नहीं बैठता है, वहां इस देश का रिप्रेजेंटेटिव जाकर बैठता है। इसके लिए यह हाउस और सारा देश उसके पीछे रहता है। इसीलिए हमें किसी के सामने झुकने की जरूरत नहीं है। एक ज़माना था जब हम जाकर अमेरिका के सामने गेहूं के लिए हाथ फैलाते थे। आज हमारा देश, हमारा किसान, हमारे लोग उस स्तर पर नहीं हैं, उससे काफी आगे पहुंच चुके हैं। मैं आप के माध्यम से प्रधान मंत्री जी से निवेदन करना चाहता हूं कि जब वे पहले रोज इस हाउस में आए थे तब मैंने उनसे कहा था कि आप किसान की तरफ नज़र रखिए। अगर किसान दुखी रहेगा, तो इस देश में कोई व्यापार नहीं चल सकता है।



सर, आप देखते होंगे कि आज गांव में जहां पर वीकली मार्केट होता है, जब तक किसान के घर में पैदावार होती है तब तक वीकली मार्केट के छोटे-छोटे व्यापारियों का काम चलता है, अन्यथा वहां भी काम ठप हो जाता है। वहां पर भी व्यापारी का काम नहीं चल सकता है। अगर आज स्कूल और कालेजों में हम बच्चों को पढ़ाने के लिए भेज पाए हैं, तो भी वह किसान की मजदूरी और उसके पैसे से ही भेज पाए हैं। उस किसान के पास जब पैसा नहीं होता, तो उसका बच्चा ट्यूशन की फीस भी नहीं दे पाता है।

(ASC/2R पर जारी)

ASC-DC/3.15/2R

श्री भूपिंदर सिंह (क्रमागत) : इसीलिए मैं उम्मीद करूंगा कि आप minimum support price को बढ़ाएं। अगर आप सब्सिडी के तौर पर अपनी सुरक्षा नहीं कर पा रहे हैं, तो आप minimum support price को बढ़ाइए। अभी जैसा माननीय त्यागी जी और दूसरे माननीय सदस्यों ने कहा है कि कुछ राज्य सब्सिडी देना चाहते हैं। आपने छत्तीसगढ़ में election slogan में बोला था कि हम 300 रुपए देंगे। ....(समय की घंटी)... आप इलेक्शन के टाइम तो बोलते हैं कि हम किसान को इतनी सब्सिडी देंगे, लेकिन उसके बाद आप क्यों भूल जाते हैं? सर, ऐसा नहीं होना चाहिए। जब हम बाहर जाते हैं, तो वहां पर लोग हम से इसका जवाब मांगते हैं कि आज आपने राज्य सभा में इसके ऊपर बात क्यों नहीं की, आपने इस पर चर्चा क्यों नहीं की? हम सरकार को सपोर्ट करते हैं, हम सरकार के पीछे खड़े हैं। सरकार जब international forum में जाकर बैठती है, तो अपना human rights ...(समय की घंटी)....

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Okay, all right.

श्री भूपिंदर सिंह : आज सरकार सारे देश के human rights को बचाने के लिए WTO में मजबूती से बात करे। धन्यवाद।

(समाप्त)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, hon. Minister.
THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (SHRIMATI NIRMALA SITHARAMAN): Hon. Deputy Chairman, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond to the questions and seeking of clarifications by hon. Members. Let me, at the outset, say a very big ‘thank you’ to every Member who chose to spoke because the interest with which they have gone into the details of the Statement made, Bali Agreement before this, and also on the issue of our rights as a nation to protect our poor farmers and also to ensure the decisions, as critical as those which affect agriculture have got to be the sovereign right and that has to be protected. Sir, I am indeed very grateful to all Members who have taken part in this debate passionately and raised very many issues on which I would seek to give as much as I can, and if there are any, which I have missed out, I hope, I will, still be able to be reminded and I can answer all of them. My predecessor, hon. Member, Shri Anand Sharma, has gone into great details to say either he is right or I am right. I think what is important here is, India has got to be right and we have only tried to keep Indian position strong, building on what possibility. If I can just crisscross and go to hon. Members, Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, who said, and also Shri Ananda Bhaskarji said, “Oh! is India like Abhimanyu, getting into a Chakravyuha, not able to come out.” In fact, Dr. Sudarsana Natchhiappan had very clearly said, we had 93 friends then, we have none now. I just want to respond and begin with that; if you want to compare India with Abhimanyu, who got into a Chakravyuha, I would like to tell you here in no uncertain terms, under the leadership of Shri Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister, we have gone in as an Abhimanyu, but we came out successfully with 160 friends, building on our predecessor, who had 93 friends. So, Sir, the approach here is, yes, we are not talking about party politics when we are outside the country; we are ensuring that our sovereign right, which is being taken care of by either so many Governments before us, now is being strengthened, and if there are any corrections to be made in the process, we, as a Government, representing the people of India, have a sovereign duty to do the course correction and ensure that our farmers or any such interests are kept intact and protected. So, we may be Abhimanyu, but that Abhimanyu, successfully came out of the Chakravyuha with more friends and not less. So, let me be sure that the track of our argument is not to say, ‘that was terrible and this is better.’ No; we are very clearly saying, Bali was imperfect and there is no way that I am retracting that statement. It was an imperfect agreement. ...(Interruptions)...
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   15


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page