MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no; you cannot claim like that. There is nothing to do with that.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, record is there.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, please. The Chair should allow me.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Why do you want to compare? ..(Interruptions).. Why do you want to compare?
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Why? ..(Interruptions).. Don’t you want me to clarify? ..(Interruptions)..
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Why do you unnecessarily bring into that?
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, please. I am very much right.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The data is with me. Why do you bring in unnecessary things?
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, please. I am only requesting.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay; all right.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, now the last point which I need to make, and it is equally relevant and important, is with respect to para eleven of the Statement. Para eleven of the Statement has claimed that "As per the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, a General Council decision on these elements has the same legal status as a Ministerial decision." Now, Sir, I am astonished. It is like the Minister informing this House that a decision is taken by the Cabinet Ministers or Cabinet of the country and later on -- some clarity is not there; some ambiguity is there which was only confined to one country in understanding the simple English -- the Committee of Secretaries changed the decision of the Cabinet. Now, it is very clear, if the Minister's attention was drawn to the Marrakesh Agreement which led to the establishment of the WTO. I read for your benefit. The Ministerial Conference is the supreme legislative body of the WTO and its powers flow chiefly from Articles 3, 4, 6 and 9 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO. According to article 4.1 of the said Agreement.... (Time-bell)
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: I am concluding.
.... the MC shall meet at least once every two years. According to article 4.2 of the Agreement, in the intervals between the meetings of the MC -- it goes on to say that only the Ministerial Conference has the exclusive authority to amend its decisions, to revisit its decisions -- in the interim, because the two-year gap is there, the General Council can only interpret. So, the entire claim of a new decision, a major break-through, Prime Minister's meeting with President Obama and all, I would urge the Minister, either you reject these two Declarations and the Statements of the DG, WTO, the Chairman of the General Council, or if you accept that, then please correct your Statement. This House must not be mislead, nor the country because this will become a serious matter. It could have been inadvertent in that Statement. Now, it would be deliberate. I am making that fundamentally clear. Now, Sir, the last thing is, and I say it again, with all responsibility, my Statement as the Minister of 18th had a finality and I would like to say these two Statements cannot be correct.
(Contd. by BHS/2G)
SHRI ANAND SHARMA (CONTD.) : Either my statement was wrong or this statement is wrong. If my statement was wrong, there should be a Privilege motion against me. If my statement was correct, the Minister should accept in all humility that she is wrong.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri Anand Sharmaji, for your information, the then LoP on that day took eighteen minutes. You have taken twenty-three minutes! Since you brought it, I have to say that. Shri Derek O’Brien.
SHRI DEREK O’BRIEN (WEST BENGAL): Sir, I am very nervous today because I have been inspired by my friends from UP and Bihar, from the BSP, the SP and the JD(U), to try and speak a little in Hindi. So, if I make some mistakes, you must not laugh at me.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: But, it will be better than my Hindi! Do not worry.
SHRI DEREK O’BRIEN: Sir, I have two questions. I will take three-four minutes only.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I will be very grateful to you.
श्री देरेक ओब्राईन :भारत ने बाली में ...(व्यवधान)...
श्री सतीश चन्द्र मिश्रा :सर, हिन्दी में ये बहुत मधुर बोलते हैं, अंग्रेज़ी में कुछ कटु हो जाते हैं।
श्री देरेक ओब्राईन :भारत ने बाली में जो हासिल किया था, वह WTO समस्या का आधा solution था, पूरा नहीं, क्योंकि 10% सब्सिडी कैप का उल्लंघन करने की immunity सिर्फ चार साल के लिए दी गई थी। अब immunity पर समय की कोई पाबंदी नहीं है, लेकिन यह भी सम्पूर्ण समाधान नहीं है।
जब इसका पूरा हल निकल आएगा और डोमेस्टिक सपोर्ट के लिए नया फॉर्मूला अपनाया जाएगा, तो भारत को WTO में कुछ और concession देना होगा या नहीं देना होगा, that is the question. While the Government and the earnest and hardworking Minister has seemingly helped improve the deal from Bali, the current situation, let it be said, has been on the Table since it raised the red flag in the summer. But, it stopped half way. My question is: Why did it not press for a final solution, something it had argued for and agreed to endorse the TFA? So, am I to conclude? ...(interruptions)... No, I have moved now.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is Hindi !
SHRI DEREK O’BRIEN: It is my first day, Sir. I have only two paragraphs. ...(interruptions)... Now, Kanimozhi is asking me to speak in English!
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: What Hindi it is?
SHRI DEREK O’BRIEN: Sir, on a serious note. ...(interruptions)... On a serious note, short-term gain but long-term pain. I have two specific questions on this short-term gain and long-term pain. The first question for the Government is that the TFA will enhance the developed countries’ access to Indian markets; we know that. India is losing out in competitiveness in all product lines as there has been a hollowing out of industries. So, my straight question to the Minister is that please tell us: How is the TFA going to impact growth in the manufacturing sector? My second clarification is to do with what the Minister said and I quote: “Continuing the minimum support programme is the lifeline for millions of our low income resource farmers. We have a right to distribute food to the poorest of the poor.” Then, I have to ask the Minister, through you, Sir: What about MNREGA; then what about cutting back on subsidies for petroleum products; then what about cutting education subsidies; then what about cutting health subsidies and then what about cutting all social sector expenditure? So, I am totally confused because they need to clarify this. On one side, they make all these statements about distributing food to the poorest of the poor, and on the other side, they go and cut all these subsidies. I will end, Sir, with a quote, and it is a nice and appropriate quote. Guess who said this: Hon. Mr. Arun Shourie. This is what he said three-four days ago. “When all is said and done, more is said than done!”
(Contd. by YSR/2H/2.30)
SHRI DEREK O’BRIEN (CONTD.): What does the Minister have to say about her statement in relation to this statement? Thank you, Sir.
SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (WEST BENGAL): Sir, it is a matter for seeking clarifications and many such issues have been raised by the Deputy Leader of the Congress Party. I do not wish to repeat them.
Sir, my first point concerns the statement made by the hon. Minister. It is contained in point No.10 of the statement of the hon. Minister. It states, “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 even if the negotiations on such other issues are delayed.”
Sir, the whole concern about this agreement and about our food subsidies arises from the fact that India follows a subsidy programme that is price related. We give subsidies to our farmers through our minimum support prices and then we subsidise through our ration shops. We used to do it, I don’t know if that will continue. We used to subsidise it through our ration shops for the consumer at a reasonable rate. Since these are price related, the argument internationally and particularly from the USA was that this distorts the pricing mechanism and therefore distorts world trade. Therefore, these have to be done away with.
My first objection to the fact is this. We have chosen this mechanism. They may not like it because, according to them, it distorts international commerce. They continue to give subsidies outside of the price mechanism sometimes to the phenomenal extent of 80 per cent to their farmers. And these highly subsidised agricultural and dairy products are wishing to come and penetrate into the Indian market and thereby destroying our farmers who are already victims of an agrarian distress. This is the anomaly that needed to be corrected. Why did we accept that pricing mechanism subsidies, through a pricing mechanism like the ones we have, are related to the overall package? Why was that not argued for the sake of India and developing countries? Our critique of the then Commerce Minister, Mr. Anand Sharma, was precisely this. Why did you talk in terms of an interim period? It has now been clarified. What he was saying, which I was disputing then from this very place, was that this interim period is not a timeframe for a permanent solution. It has now been clarified that interim period is till a permanent solution is evolved. Now this evolved permanent solution is very critical to our country’s future, our people’s future and our economy’s future, because this country rests on its rural areas, on our farming community and on our agriculture.
You have already seen in this House and in the earlier Government when the Minister for Agriculture was giving us information based on the data collected by the Bureau of Industrial Costs and Pricing that the cost of production in agriculture has always grown at a higher rate than the growth in the Minimum Support Price. And that is what explains your farmers committing suicide. The subsidies that you are giving are not adequate to even allow the farmers to live. If you are going to contain subsidies until a permanent solution is found -- these are the words that I used -- and the permanent solution finding is something that we are very, very concerned about, because if it’s got to be delinked from the pricing mechanism and therefore that will be used as an excuse to move towards cash subsidies that will be given instead of a pricing mechanism, that will cause havoc in the existing system of our subsidies to our agriculture. Without these subsidies, I again repeat, neither can millions of our people survive nor can agriculture continue to grow which is still the backbone of our country’s people. It may not be in terms of GDP figures, in terms of the contribution to the GDP, but for people’s livelihood, it is the backbone. Therefore, this particular issue of accepting this linkage of our subsidies, through the price mechanism as being something alien in the world trade negotiations, is something that I have serious objections to.
(Contd. by VKK/2J)
SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD.):I want this Government to assure that nothing of that nature will be done which will put our farmers in jeopardy.
The second clarification which I seek is that at the WTO our ambassador to the WTO has said something. After these negotiations, the ambassador said something. What did he say? I quote, “Till we have an assurance and visible outcomes which convince developing countries that members will engage in negotiations with commitment to find a permanent solution on public stockholding and all other Bali deliverables, especially those for the LDCs, India will find it difficult to join the consensus on the protocol of amendment”. I repeat, “......India will find it difficult to join the consensus on the protocol of amendment”. Now, what does the hon. Minister state here? It is stated that the General Council has agreed to de-link the negotiations for a permanent solution on public stockholding. Now, if a general agreement is found other than the public stockholding, I presume what the Minister means is that we will be a part of that. While our ambassador’s and our stated position is that until this issue on public stockholding is resolved and resolved favourably as far as we are concerned, we will not be part of that protocol. There is a blatant contradiction in this and this contradiction itself exposes the chinks in the arm and that is my concern. My third point of clarification is that in today’s conditions, we are moving towards lower procurement of agricultural products by the Government and moving greater towards market mechanisms which are fluctuating and unstable, and on that basis, given one bad monsoon or one inadequate monsoon, the fate of millions of our farmers will be in jeopardy. Now, this cannot be allowed. Therefore, there is no question of India signing any general agreement on agriculture till this issue is finally settled in our favour. That assurance does not come. (Time-bell) Now, that is the assurance which I think will have to be given here. There are many other points which are connected and which other Members have raised. This will open the door for other sort of concessions in non-agricultural areas in the WTO. The Doha Round is still on. Various issues are also at stake like whether to include education in the services, whether to include culture in the services, etc. In health, it is already there. Foreign participation is coming in. But, all these are connected with the security of the Indian people. Therefore, I seek clarifications on these three points – first, the contradictory statements of the ambassador and the Minister; second, the point that till we find a permanent solution which is acceptable through the pricing mechanism, we will not be party to final agreement on agriculture; and, third, this Government will not move towards abandonment of the Minimum Support Price and the pricing mechanism towards direct cash subsidies and lowering procurement. These three are very important for the people and the country, and these must be adequately clarified. Thank you.
SHRI D. RAJA (TAMIL NADU):Sir, I wish to seek clarifications with regard to three paragraphs – para 3, para 8 and para 10 of the statement made by the Minister. Sir, since the inception of WTO, India is a part of WTO, a member of WTO. India is well aware and the Minister knows that the struggle within the WTO is between the developed countries and the developing countries as far as subsidies to agriculture are concerned and as far as food security and procurement of foodgrains is concerned.
(Contd. by KR/2K)
SHRI D. RAJA (CONTD.): Now, in this background, I would like to ask the Minister what is the role that India has been playing to unite more developing countries in the struggle to protect the interests of the developing countries. For instance, I raise this question India and the United States reached an agreement on the issue of Public Stockholding on foodgrains on 13th November, 2014. The Minister's statement says "We were able to resolve our differences with the United States, and persuade them to support us in the WTO on our requirements." What is this? I would like to know whether we are giving in to the pressure of the United States, or, the United States is succumbing to India's requirement, and whether we are leaving our allies, developing countries in the WTO forum. We are leaving them behind and going along with the United States of America. Is the Government clear on what it is doing? Is it just a concession to Mr. Obama who will be our chief guest at the Republic Day celebration? What is the position of India? India should be clear what it is doing in such a multilateral forum. It shows lack of clarity or hidden positions that India is taking. One can doubt India's position because we used to be with the developing countries. Now, all of a sudden, we move closer to the United States. This is number one which the Minister should clarify.
Para 8 of the statement talks about "The Decision includes a commitment to find a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security purposes by 31st December, 2015 on the best endeavour basis." What is the best endeavour basis? This introduces a sense of urgency. What is the best endeavour basis which introduces a sense of urgency in the process and would encourage other developing countries also to join the effort in pushing forward for a permanent solution at the earliest? So, there are developing countries which are not with us now. You expect that they will join us at some point of time. Which are those countries? What is India doing to unite those developing countries? Finally, it is going to be a battle between developing countries and developed countries. India being the number one developing country among the developing countries India has to play a pro active role, a positive role in uniting these developing countries. Would the Minister share with the House which are those developing countries with whom India is negotiating?
Then, finally, para 10 talks about " 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 even if the negotiations on such other issues are delayed." Now, negotiations are important. What are the negotiations actually going on? Would the Minister share with the House on what issues these negotiations are going on, or, what concessions we are making, or, what gains we are getting through these negotiations? ..(Interruptions)...
SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA: When Raja speaks praja walks out!
SHRI D. RAJA: One last issue. India is also negotiating simultaneously Free Trade Agreements with a group of countries, with individual countries, with the European Union, with the ASEAN and with countries like Sri Lanka also.
(Continued by 2L/KS)
SHRI D. RAJA (contd.): So, how do you integrate all these Free Trade Agreements with the multi-lateral agreement within the framework of WTO? The whole point is, whatever Government does, it should not be detrimental to the interests of the nation, the nation's agriculture and the farming community.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri K. C. Tyagi.
श्री के0सी0 त्यागी (बिहार) :सर, मैं पहले आपसे निवेदन करना चाहता हूं कि यह जो आपकी घंटी है इतनी बार बजाते हो कि आपको इसे कई-कई बार चार्ज करना पड़ता है। मैं अपना वक्तव्य दूंगा तो उम्मीद करुंगा कि आप इसको कष्ट नहीं देंगे।
श्री उपसभापति :आप ऐसा करो, तीन-चार मिनट में खत्म करो।......(व्यवधान)
कुछ माननीय सदस्य :सर, इनका आज बर्थडे है, इसलिए आप घंटी न बजाएं।.....(व्यवधान)
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Happy Birthday! ...(Interruptions)... The whole House joins in wishing you a Happy Birthday! So, you can speak for one minute more.
श्री के0सी0 त्यागी : सर, मैं टी0एम0सी0 के अपने मित्रों को धन्यवाद करना चाहता हूं कि आर्थिक सवालों पर ये हम लोगों के बहुत करीब हो गए हैं और आशा है कि हम लोगों की एकता बनी रहेगी।
सर, इकोनॉमिक्स में जिसको नोबल प्राइज मिला है, मि0 जोसेफ, वे वर्ल्ड बैंक के चेयरमैन भी रहे हैं। The centre of looting the Third World countries, thy name is the World Bank! चीफ एडवाइजर भी रहे हैं क्लिन्टन गवर्नमेंट में। सर, उन्होंने लिखा है globalization और जो डब्ल्यू0टी0ओ0 की शर्तें हैं इनको मानते-मानते थर्ड वर्ल्ड कन्ट्रीज की जो इकोनॉमी है वह खराब हो जाएगी। उसको नोबल पुरस्कार मिला हुआ है। सर, इस देश के लक्षण देखिए, कैसे हो रहे हैं। डब्ल्यू0टी0ओ0 में जो हिन्दुस्तान के इंटरेस्ट के खिलाफ वकालत करके आए हैं मि0 सी0 रंगराजन, वे इस समय भारत सरकार के एडवाइजर हैं। यह ऐसे ही है जैसे मछलियों की रखवाली के लिए आप बगुलों को बैठा दें। सर, ये जो शर्तें हैं, चाहे यू0पी0ए0 के टाइम की हों या एन0डी0ए0 के टाइम की हों, जिस बाली को लेकर हमारे मित्र, though he is from the Left, he is on my right side and though they are right, they are on my left side, बाली समझौते को लेकर के जो इनके सजेशंस हैं, वे ऐसे ही हैं जैसे फांसी की सजा का दिन टलने का मतलब माफी नहीं होता। सर, इस देश के अंदर इस साल खास तौर से, पिछले साल से शुरू है, डब्ल्यू0टी0ओ0 में आनन्द शर्मा जी, बचा क्या है लगाने के लिए जो बाली का जिक्र आप और आप कर रहे हो। ये तीन शर्तें हैं, मैं पहले तीनों शर्तें पढ़कर आपको सुनाना चाहता हूं। जो फॉर्म प्रोड्यूजिज है, खबरदार अगर उनके दाम बढ़ाए तो। केन्द्र सरकार का नोटिफिकेशन है कि इस साल फसलों के दाम नहीं बढ़ेंगे। सिर्फ तीन परसेंट की बढ़ोतरी हुई है और यू0पी0ए0 की गवर्नमेंट, ये तो अपनी तारीफ खुद भी नहीं करना चाहते, पता नहीं किन जालों में फंसे हुए हैं, पांच सौ रुपए तक के इनके यू0पी0ए0 के शासन काल में किसानों को फसलों के दाम ज्यादा मिले। लेकिन ये भी इन्हीं जालों में फंसे हुए हैं आजकल, नम्बर-1. नम्बर-टू - भारत सरकार का सरकुलर है, यह डब्ल्यू0टी0ओ0 की शर्त भी है, यह बाली के पैक्ट का भी नतीजा है, जिस पर ये कह रहे हैं यह कर दिया, ये कह रहे हैं हमें बड़ी तसल्ली मिल गई। दूसरा है कि सब्सिडी खत्म करो। कितने लाख, कितने करोड़ क्विंटल चावल पैदा होता है? आप हिसाब लगाइए, कितना गेहूं पैदा होता है और आपने तो देश को बेच दिया था डब्ल्यू0टी0ओ0 में नहीं, उसमें वहां से आता था अनाज पी0एल0-480 का और अमेरिका शर्तें लगाता था। यह हम थे, हमारे पुरखे थे और कृषि वैज्ञानिक थे, जो भारत को आज इस स्थिति में लाए कि दुनिया का नम्बर-2 चावल पैदा करने वाला, नम्बर-1 गेहूं पैदा करने वाला और नम्बर-3 का शक्कर पैदा करने वाला मुल्क आज हिन्दुस्तान हो गया। लेकिन इस पर किसी को गर्व नहीं है, इसका कहीं जिक्र नहीं है। सर, दूसरा है सब्सिडी खत्म करने वाला। मैं इनकी सरकार की भी कहना चाहता हूं और उनकी सरकार की भी। इनकी सरकार के दो मुख्यमंत्री हैं, एक हैं रमन सिंह जी, इस समय हिन्दुस्तान में जो सबसे ज्यादा चावल पैदा हो रहा है उनमें से छत्तीसगढ़ अकेला है। जहां सबसे ज्यादा गेहूं पैदा हो रहा है वह है मध्य प्रदेश। दोनों सूबे के मुख्यमंत्रियों ने चिट्ठी लिखी है प्लीज, भगवान श्रीराम के लिए यह सब्सिडी खत्म करो, हमारे यहां के किसान मर जाएंगे।
(2M/klg पर जारी)
श्री के. सी. त्यागी (क्रमागत): लेकिन सब्सिडी भी खत्म हो गई। तीसरी डब्लूटीओ की शर्त है कि पीडीएस सिस्टम खत्म करो। तो सर, 25 परसेंट राइस और व्हीट इस साल पीडीएस के लिए लिया जा रहा है, बाकी पूंजीपतियों, होरडर्स और एक्सपोर्टर्स के लिए खुले मार्केट में छोड़ा जा रहा है कि बाकी तुम जो है सस्ते दामों पर किसानों से ले लो। तो अब डब्लूटीओ से नेगोसिएशन के लिए बचा क्या है? आप बाली में जो करके आए थे, उससे कोई बड़ा करिश्मा नहीं हुआ। अब इसको इन्होंने बढ़ाया और इसमें कुछ भी नहीं है। इन्होंने फांसी की सजा चार साल और बढ़ा दी है और कह रहे हैं कि हमने रिलीफ दे दी है।
सर, मैं पढ़कर सुनाना चाहता हूँ। परमानेंट सॉल्युशन के लिए इन्होंने भारत के किसानों के लिए कत्ल की तारीख 31 दिसंबर, 2014 तय की थी, शायद वह बढ़ जाएगी, लेकिन हर हाल में 26 जनवरी से पहले, चूंकि मालिक आ रहे हैं, जो पूरी दुनिया को चलाते हैं, ओबामा साहब, उनके लिए यह 26 तारीख से पहले पैक्ट होना है। यह आप किसी कागज पर लिख लीजिए। यह उनके लिए होना है। एक यह भी डॉक्ट्रीन चल गया है, रीगन डॉक्ट्रीन चल गया है, थैचर डॉक्ट्रीन चल गया है, Deng Xiaoping डॉक्ट्रीन चल गया है। सर, अमरीका का जो सबसे बड़ा बैंक लेहमैन बर्दर्स है, वह डिफॉल्टर हो गया है, अमरीका के 35 और बैंक डिफॉल्टर हो गए हैं। साढ़े आठ लाख अमरीकी लोगों ने कहा कि हम डिफॉल्टर होना चाहते हैं, even then we are proud of their economy. इंग्लैंड में थैचर ने जो डिनेशनलाइजेशन किया था, अब उसमें सभी संगठनों ने मांग की है कि रेल को दुबारा नेशनलाइज करो। उनका सिस्टम कॉलेप्स कर गया, लेकिन हमारे मित्र खोजते रहते हैं कि कैसे विदेशी पूंजी आए। सर, इससे बहुत डर लगता है। एक फिल्म आई थी कि थप्पड़ से नहीं प्यार से डर लगता है ।