Mr Deputy Chairman, many members have expressed their views on the President’s address. In the President’s address, the President has no personal role; whatever the government writes and gives is what he has to deliver—he cannot change even a pause.
Any government has the right to celebrate its so-called achievements, but the question is this: when the condition of the country deteriorates, it deteriorates even for Congress supporters. When inflation rises sky-high, you cannot claim that only non-Congress people will be affected while Congress supporters will not. You may celebrate that prices are falling, but if your definition of falling prices actually means prices going up, then indeed prices are “falling.”
You are aware that the security situation in the country is worsening. Communal riots have occurred in various places, creating a sense of fear among minorities. The increasing atrocities against weaker sections would make any civilized society hang its head in shame. It was expected that through this address, the government would reassure the nation that it would take concrete steps—to control inflation, to remove fear from the hearts of minorities, and to stop repeatedly demanding that they prove their loyalty to the nation. But none of this was said.
If prices are rising and the economic situation is deteriorating, it can still be managed. But if the moral character of the nation declines, it cannot be restored quickly. Today, the matter of concern is that the authority of law and the government is steadily eroding in the country. There is no fear of the law in people’s hearts, and no respect for the government. I will not speak of distant matters—members of this House should consider what is happening in Delhi.
If prices are rising and the economic situation is deteriorating, it can still be managed. But if the moral character of the nation declines, it cannot be restored quickly.
Earlier, thefts and robberies used to occur at night; such is the capability of this administration that now thefts and robberies occur in the capital during the day. What does this signify? Does it not compel you to think?
Today, a state of unrest has arisen among every section of society. Does this not compel you to reflect on it and come before the House to explain what steps are being taken to calm this unrest? Remaining silent will not suffice—the unrest will only grow further.
I do not wish to issue a threat, but any student of politics knows that when unrest increases, it can turn into rebellion. It is unfortunate for this country that there has been no rebellion here, no revolution; changes do occur, but they happen without revolution. However, today society has undergone a shift. Among those who have been suppressed for centuries, there is a surge, an awakening. They too wish to rise. How long will you keep them suppressed? You cannot silence them by branding them as Naxalites in some places or as anti-social elements in others. This must be remembered.
It is unfortunate for this country that there has been no rebellion here, no revolution; changes do occur, but they happen without revolution.
What is happening in Gujarat today—could it not have been expected that some light would be shed on it? The policy the government wishes to adopt on this matter—did it not need to be reiterated? What is the fault of those for whom protection exists? If the situation in Gujarat were to be described, it would send shivers down the spine. There is protection for Scheduled Castes, for Scheduled Tribes, and for certain backward communities there. Among these backward communities are Hindus, Muslims, and Christians alike. That protection is being opposed. If it were merely opposition, it would be understandable, but not only is it being opposed—there are attempts to harass and persecute people of those sections. In Gujarat, the population of Scheduled Castes is 7 percent—7 out of 100. It is worth considering what the outcome would be if the remaining 93 or 80 percent were to attack those 7 percent. It is a matter of shame that such treatment is being meted out to these people.
Regarding what is happening in Ahmedabad, I would like the Home Minister to state how many settlements of Harijans and how many houses have been burned. Let him say how many localities have been emptied. Let him explain how many constables took part in the stabbings. Those from whom security is expected are themselves carrying out the attacks today. I would like a judicial inquiry committee to be set up to investigate how those who carried out the attacks were aided by police personnel, and the extent to which they jointly attacked people from these sections. It should also investigate why, when protection was meant for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward communities, only Scheduled Castes are being targeted.
A newspaper has reported that Muslims there have said, “Dalits and Muslims are brothers.” What is objectionable in this? In India, everyone is “untouchable.” If a fraternity of the untouchables forms, what is there to be alarmed about? In this country, Muslims are untouchable, Christians are untouchable, Harijans are untouchable—everyone is untouchable.
If a fraternity of the untouchables forms, what is there to be alarmed about? In this country, Muslims are untouchable, Christians are untouchable, Harijans are untouchable—everyone is untouchable.
Alright, I consider myself a Hindu. I would like to ask Mrs. [Rajendra Kumari] Vajpayee—if she is honest—whether she also considers me a Hindu.
If she does not consider (someone) untouchable, then she has fallen from Brahminhood; and one who has fallen from Brahminhood has no right to speak for Hindu society. A Brahmin who says that he drinks water touched by a Muslim cannot be called a Brahmin. ……… He is no longer a Brahmin and has no right to be called one.
……… I say, I want to repeat again that in India, a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste considers himself a Hindu, but Hindus have not accepted him as a Hindu. ……
A Brahmin who says that he drinks water touched by a Muslim cannot be called a Brahmin. He is no longer a Brahmin and has no right to be called one.
I mentioned this casually; I did not intend to speak on this subject. I referred to a newspaper report that in Ahmedabad some posters were seen saying “Dalits and Muslims are brothers.” I said there is nothing inconsistent in that, nothing to be alarmed about—that is all I said. But many questions remain. Today, across India, the extent of atrocities being committed against Scheduled Castes—are they being carried out by outsiders (non-believers)? ………
I was not saying that nothing happened during the rule of the Janata Party and that everything is happening only during Congress rule. I did not say that, nor do I wish to say it. I am merely describing the condition of society. Why did you get alarmed that I was speaking only against Congress? ……
I am not saying that this is happening only during Congress’s time. I am describing the social condition of the country. If Congress members take comfort in thinking that it does not exist within Congress, then covering a disease like leprosy with a silken cloth does not hide it—it remains leprosy. This is a disease of society that exists within Congress, within the Janata Party, and in all political parties. Do not suppress this disease under a silken cover; let it come to the surface.
Mr. Deputy Chairman, the interruptions and noise from Congress members do not concern me. Truth can be bitter. Very few people have the strength to digest the truth, and even fewer have the capacity to hear it. Therefore, I am neither worried nor alarmed by such interruptions. I want to ask whether anyone is willing to stand up and oppose this. Today, the atrocities being committed against Scheduled Castes are being carried out by their own co-religionists, not by outsiders. If you say this happened during the rule of the Janata Party, then it is a matter of shame—for us and for everyone.
Today, the atrocities being committed against Scheduled Castes are being carried out by their own co-religionists, not by outsiders.
I am also aware of declared policy. I also know the words of the scriptures:
“Ātmavat sarvabhūteṣu” (treat all beings as oneself) is a very lofty principle. It too is a policy—but how much has it been implemented? Similarly, the policy that you, Madam, are referring to—how much of it has been implemented is what matters. Policy and principles alone are not sufficient; what matters is practice. Muslims have lived in this country for centuries. It becomes a grave danger for a democracy when a sense of fear spreads within any section of society. Who can say that there is no fear psychosis among Muslims today? Who can say there is no fear psychosis among Christians today? Who can say there is no fear psychosis among the proletariat today? This exists within Congress members, within Janata Party members, within Jan Sangh members—it exists within everyone, because we are all part of society. Merely saying that we are Congress members and therefore free of it will not suffice. I too have been in the Congress. Whatever others claim to know about Congress principles, I can at least claim to know as much. Therefore, it is not principles that matter, but conduct.
What I was saying is that what is happening in the country today—what steps the government intends to take to stop it—should have been mentioned in the President’s address. It should have been stated how the sense of fear among Muslims would be removed, and how they would be given adequate representation in governance. Representation in governance is not an economic issue; it means whether every section of citizens participates in governance. If they are not given participation in governance, then one must conclude that there exists a ruling class and a ruled class. In this way, democracy cannot function in the country. Muslims must also be given participation in governance. They too should feel that they have a share in governance. I am not speaking of mere tokenism. Those who raise an uproar at the idea of “share” seem to think each of them is a ruler of India. Muslims also have a share in India, and they will demand it. Raising one’s voice cannot stop this.
Muslims must also be given participation in governance. They too should feel that they have a share in governance. I am not speaking of mere tokenism. Those who raise an uproar at the idea of “share” seem to think each of them is a ruler of India. Muslims also have a share in India, and they will demand it. Raising one’s voice cannot stop this.
What I was saying is that today, when millions of people from the proletarian classes demand wages to work in the fields, their homes are burned down. What has recently happened in Uttar Pradesh is a matter of shame for everyone. When they demand wages, they are met with bullets. I believe that if the ruling class itself raised this issue, it would demonstrate their honesty. In the twentieth century, if people are shot for demanding wages, is this a matter only for the opposition to raise? Is it not a matter of shame for the ruling party? How many among them have come forward to say they will go to that village and undertake satyagraha—is this not a matter of shame, rather than merely raising slogans? Voices will be raised asking why you did not go—who is stopping you? Because where there is no sense of shame, anything can be done.
This is what I was saying—that the country is breaking apart. What is happening in Delhi today—there is no coordination among the different organs of governance. The various organs of governance (sentence continues…)
If this is not acknowledged, the country will break into pieces. Today, the police are doing whatever they feel like. They are blinding prisoners, breaking their limbs, and keeping accused persons in jail for seven, eight, even ten years without trial. You may say this happened during the rule of the Janata Party. I am not saying it happened only during your rule. ………
What I was saying is that the President’s address should have included something on these matters—what we intend to do. How do we plan to establish peace and order in the country? Will the government function merely out of fear of the police? There is a need to exercise control over the police. Will the police be left free to do whatever they wish? It is the responsibility of political leadership to restrain the police.
If the country breaks, it will break for us as well as for you. If the moral character of the country declines, it will affect us as well as you.
There is a central government in Delhi, but it appears that every citizen in Delhi has the freedom to do whatever they want—there is no one to question them. Can no solution be found for this? If I am asked to suggest one, I can. But I believe that those in power must have the capacity to think for themselves. However, I will say this: the police must feel that political leadership can restrain them when necessary, can exert pressure on them—only then can governance function properly. Otherwise, the police become unruly, and in such a situation even political leadership is endangered—I want to issue a warning. None of these issues have been mentioned in the President’s address, though they should have been. Today, the country is fragmenting into different parts. What is happening in Assam, in Gujarat, in Uttar Pradesh—these show the direction in which the country is heading. Today, it is said with great pride that political stability has come—“it has come”; your party has gained a large presence in the Lok Sabha and in the state assemblies. But what is happening in Madhya Pradesh? What is happening in Maharashtra? I do not wish to accuse you; I wish to express concern. Even after your leader issues instructions, the same reactions are repeated—is this not a matter of concern? It is a concern for you and for us. When instability arises in the country, it becomes a matter of concern for every citizen and for anyone who cares about the nation. All this should have been brought to light, but while the President sheds light on matters when stepping outside Rashtrapati Bhavan, no light has been shed on these issues. These are the matters of concern.
I do not wish to take much more time, Mr. Deputy Chairman, but I want to repeat the same point. When inflation rises, it does not trouble only the families of people on this side; it troubles your families as well. When the security system breaks down, the danger is not only to “our” people—it is also a danger to Bhagwat or Azad. ………
That’s why I was saying this is a national issue; it should not be viewed as a party issue. It is a matter of concern for the entire nation. I want to repeat—if the economic situation deteriorates, it can be managed; but if moral decline sets in, it cannot be repaired quickly. Today, the country is moving toward moral decline. Today, no work can be carried out smoothly through the machinery of government. I was not aware that the leader of your Congress party also sits on the very last bench; I had assumed she sits here and I look to her for answers. I repeat that I do not wish to make this a party issue, but it becomes your responsibility because you are in power. If the country breaks, it will break for us as well as for you. If the moral character of the country declines, it will affect us as well as you. Therefore, I would like to warn you—make arrangements to prevent the moral decline of the nation; if you do not, your name will not shine brightly in history.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.