Lok Sabha Debates
Raised A Discussion On Statement Made By Shri Sikander Bakht, Minister Of ... on 21 July, 1998
Title: Raised a discussion on statement made by Shri Sikander Bakht, Minister of Industry on 8 June, 1998 regarding Maruti Udyog Limited. The Minister replied to the debate. (Concluded) 15.27 hrs. सभापति महोदय : अब नियम १९३ के अधीन बहस शुरु होगी। माननीय सदस्य श्री एस. जयपाल रेड्डी ।
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak today with more anguish than with anger because I am trying to draw the attention of such a senior Minister, Shri Sikander Bakht. We have been great friends. The problem with the hon. Minister is that he takes everything in a personal sense. I hope he will not do this on this occasion having regard to the record of our equations extending over years. (Interruptions).
15.28 hrs (Prof. Rita Verma in the Chair) Madam, I am now dealing with the subject of Suzukisation of Maruti Company. The first nail was driven into the coffin, of Government's own Maruti Company Limited, way back in 1992. That was when the Congress Government allowed the Suzuki Company to raise its equity from 40 per cent to 50 per cent for reasons best known to that Government. The final name into the coffin has been driven by this Government. I am sorry to make this strong remark.
Before I deal with the merits of the agreement, I would like to go a little deep into the history of the whole issue. Before the equity of Suzuki Company was raised to 50 per cent, Shri Bhargava was the Managing Director of Maruti Company. He was the Managing Director of this Company as Government's nominee. He was the Managing Director of the Company for seven long years.
When the equity was raised to fifty per cent and nomination of the M.D. came to Suzuki by turn, Suzuki strangely chose same Shri Bhargava as its choice. Before Shri Bhargava became the M.D. of Maruti Company on behalf of Suzuki Company, there were many grave allegations against Shri Bhargava. Those allegations were not allowed to be inquired into by the CBI. After he ceased to be the Government's M.D., the CBI inquired into a couple of charges and filed two charge-sheets against him.
I am sorry to strike a slight personal note at this stage. I happened to be the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha's Committee on Government Assurances at that time. The matter was brought to the notice of the Committee. The Committee took up the issue and after inquiring into the issue exhaustively, made recommendations to the Government unanimously that Shri Bhargava should be removed as M.D. because he was facing charge-sheets in the court. This report of the Committee was submitted on 25th August, 1995. I quote from the Committee's report:
"The Committee are of the considered view that the Government should take immediate steps to relieve Shri Bhargava of his office by moving against him under the Company law and by telling Suzuki in loud and clear language that the Government will not put up with its planted and tainted nominee."
This was the recommendation of the Committee. I must here say that the then Minister for Industry, Shri Karunakaran took a very serious view of the unanimous recommendation of this all-party Committee and acted with remarkable despatch and promptitude. He wrote to Suzuki Company asking them to replace Shri Bhargava by somebody else. Though it was the privilege of the Suzuki Company at that time to have a nominee of its choice, the Government told Suzuki in black and white that Shri Bhargava was tainted by charge-sheets and therefore, he did not deserve to be the M.D. of the Company. The Suzuki Company obstinately refused to replace Shri Bhargava. Suzuki invoked its inherent right to nominate its own choice. The Government at that time approached the Company Board to take steps in the matter as per the recommendation of the Committee.
I must congratulate Shri Karunakaran on having taken another step which later on proved to be a momentous one. Shri Jagdish Khattar was one of the nominees of the Government on Maruti Board as a Director. When he was seen to collude with Suzuki Company, Shri Karunakaran passed an order that he be removed from the Board of Directors.
In the meantime, the new Government took over and Shri Murasoli Maran took over as the Minister of Industry. He also took an equally strong view in the matter. The order of Shri Karunakaran was implemented by Shri Murasoli Maran. And what was more? Shri Maran took the step of nominating Shri Bhaskarudu as the Managing Director. The Suzuki protested saying that Shri Bhaskarudu did not suit that company. Shri Maran said that you cannot have it both ways. When we asked you to remove Shri Bhargava, you did not agree. You claimed absolute privilege. Now, it is our turn to chose our M.D. and our choice has to be similarly absolute. It cannot be qualified at all and Suzuki was so incensed that it went to an international court.
Now, how did Martuti company get built up? Madam, Maruti company was given protection not only from competition from other foreign companies but also from India's own car manufacturers. It was given protection from that mildewed car, Ambassador and from another mildewed car, Fiat. The excise concessions given to Maruti Udyog Limited came to Rs.2,200 crore. I am not quoting a figure out of my own imagination. This was the figure submitted to the International Court by the Government of India in defence of its own case.
What was the investment made by Suzuki Company in Maruti? Its capital was only Rs.103 crore and what did Suzuki get in return? It got Rs.350 crore either by way of profit or by way of royalty. Suzuki Company sold components and equipments worth Rs.4,200 crore. You can imagine how they were over-invoiced. The general estimate is that the over-invoicing ranged from 20 to 50 per cent depending upon the component.
When the Government's nominee Shri Bhaskarudu took over, Suzuki followed another route. That was to try to increase its equity beyond 50 per cent. It began to suggest many expansion plans and new painting company. The analysis has proved that all their plans were only designed to increase their equity and not to strengthen the company. So, the Government did not yield its ground at all. What is the present market worth of this company? I do not like to speak in terms of rupee because the value of rupee keeps on appreciating every day. That is another matter. I do not want to digress into that. The market value of this company is not less than three billion dollars. The worth of Govt`s equity today is 1.5 billion dollars. This has been built up at the cost of the taxpayers money in the country.
Our Government entered into an agreement in a cloak and dagger fashion. It was entered into on Saturday, the June 6, 1998. May I quote from the Agreement? I have a copy of the Agreement with me. I, therefore, propose to quote from the Agreement. If the Minister wants, I will place it on the Table of the House. These provisions of the Agreements have not been made public. I am quoting from the Agreement:
"2.2 Both parties agree to appoint Mr. Jagdish Kattar, who will be appointed as a Government nominated whole-time Director of Maruti not later than June 9, 1998 as the second joint Managing Director effective from not later than June 98 with effect from July 1, 1999."
This provision which I have read, contains three aspects. One, Shri Jagdish Kattar who had earlier been removed as a Government's nominee, would be brought back immediately to remain there up to 2,002. Secondly, he would be immediately made second Joint MD. Then later on, he would again be made the second MD. The Minister in his statement made in the House on 8th, did not choose it fit to tell the House about these facts. Shri Jagdish Kattar has been chosen by the Suzuki company and he is supposed to be a Government's nominee.
Now in this arrangement, Suzuki company will have a Chairman of its choice, and also an MD of its choice. I quoted earlier from the Rajya Sabha's Committee Report which described Shri Bhargava as a planted, tainted nominee. Shri Jagdish Kattar will be an illustrious successor to Shri Bhargava. He was also picked up by Shri Bhargava. He was his acolyte. Suzuki is armed with Midas touch. It can turn any Government's nominee into its own tool. Shri Bhaskarudu has been made to pay the price because he refused to play into the hands of Suzuki company. This Government is punishing Shri Bhaskarudu for his patriotism. This Government which talks of Swadeshi has punished Shri Bhaskarudu, a patriot par excellence.
I will quote again from the Agreement which has not been made public:
"6.3 As provided for in Article 5.7 of the amended Joint Venture Agreement, the experience and expertise of Suzuki shall be recognised and respected with respect to the technology and management of Maruti. This includes important decisions on day-to-day management as well as decisions on management policies. Government acknowledges this principle and agrees to call the Maruti to abide by this."
That means, whatever Suzuki says in respect of either technology or the price of technology or the method of management, Maruti company will have no option but to agree to it. That is the import of this clause. It also says, "Suzuki company will have the ultimate say in regard to day to day management." Show me another agreement in the corporate sector of the world where such shameful clauses have been inserted.
Madam, this whole thing was done in such a secret fashion, the Government found it difficult to find the witness for the President of India. There is one person -- I am unable to decipher his name. I need to decode his name really -- Shri R.D. Sharma. I do not know. He may be the Private Secretary to the Minister. I have no difficulty with the Private Secretary to the Minister. After all, he is a Government servant. For the President of India, the witness is only a Private Secretary to the Minister. Can there be anything more obnoxious, absurd, outrageous than this?
This kind of agreement was reached on Saturday. I am saying here with full sense of responsibility that the Ministry of Heavy Industry was not taken into confidence. No analysis was made by any Committee of Secretaries. No analysis was made by any group of Ministers. The matter was never taken before the Cabinet. The Secretary of the Heavy Industry, Shri Shankar, who is the Secretary to this, did not know this until 5th of June. He was called on Saturday and made to sign this. I am saying this with full sense of responsibility. Who were in fact taken into confidence in this matter and why did the Minister not deem it fit to have the matter studied in depth by other Committees? What were the compelling circumstances for the Government to reach this agreement? The Government tried in a subtle way to palm it off as an exercise in economic diplomacy in the post Pokhran phase. They are living in a fool's paradise. Suzuki is a tiny company in Japan. It accounts only for seven per cent of automobile sector in Japan, and our Minister and the Government of India appear to believe that Suzuki can sway the Government of Japan.
Madam, I do not like to hurt the Minister by using strong phrases but the stink of the scandal is rising to the high Heavens, and I think, this needs to be inquired into by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. If the Minister is very confident about the deal struck behind the back of his own Department, behind the back of Parliament and at the cost of people of India, let him agree to an inquiry by Joint Parliamentary Committee. That will expose the serious compromises that the Government made with the national interest while entering into agreement on this question.
I would like to tell the Minister that the stink of this scandal will continue to haunt the Government not only upto its graveyard which does not seem to be very far away, but beyond its graveyard. Therefore, let not the Minister try to escape the whole issue by indulging in loud lamentation and proud protestation for which he is well known.
">SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA (BANKURA): Madam, the agreement between the Government of India and Suzuki Company signed on 8th June 1998 is the greatest scandal of the year, if not of the century. The claim of achievement and the compromise with Suzuki Company is a surrender to the pressure of a multinational company of Japan.
The Maruti Company Ltd., was set up in 1981. But in 1982 Suzuki Motor Company had acquired 26 per cent of its share. Then it was increased to 40 per cent and the Government retained 50 per cent of its share. Then, in 1992, the share of Suzuki was increased to 50 per cent when it became entitled to the management of Maruti Company Ltd. At that time there was an agreement between Maruti and Suzuki, between the Government of India and the Suzuki Company. I would like to quote a few lines from Clause 5.1 of the agreement of 1992:
"The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be nominated by Suzuki and the Government by terms, provided that the party which nominates the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be entitled to remove such Chairman and nominate a new Chairman of the Board of Directors up to the expiration of the term of office of the predecessor. The company and the Government shall have the right to designate the next Chairman of the Board of Directors to be appointed at such Annual General Meeting of the shareholders."
As per the agreement, the Chairman was appointed by the Government of India and the Managing Director became Suzuki's nominee. Shri Bhargava was appointed as the Chairman and he was the nominee of Suzuki.
In this House as well as in the other House also, Members from various political parties raised this issue and various allegations against Shri Bhargava were levelled. In the other House the then Industry Minister gave an assurance on the issue and the Assurance Committee of Rajya Sabha took up the case and recommended strongly in favour of removal of Shri Bhargava because the serious allegations which were levelled against him were found to be true.
When the Committee on Government Assurances, Rajya Sabha submitted its Report and recommended the Secretary, Department of Heavy Industry - at that time, the Secretary was Shri T.R. Prasad - he wrote to the Suzuki Motor Corporation and he also received a reply. And what was the reply? I quote from the letter received from Mr. Osamu Suzuki, the President and CEO of the Suzuki Motor Corporation:
"Maruti is a private company, equally shared by the Government of India and the Suzuki Motor Corporation and appointment of the Board of Directors and their positions in the corporate organisation are determined after agreement between both shareholders. The Managing Director is to be elected alternately from the Board Members nominated by both shareholders. In reality, it was common understanding that election of the Managing Director of Maruti was virtually conducted in accordance with the agreement of the representatives of both shareholders. Based on such agreement, Prime Minister H.E. Mr. Narasimha Rao, representing the Government of India and myself representing the Suzuki Motor Corporation agreed to elect Mr. R.C. Bhargava as Managing Director in June, 1992. A Managing Director who is elected should not be relieved at the sole discretion of either party or your sole judgement, without having mutual consent of both shareholders."
That was the reply from the President and CEO of the Suzuki Motor Corporation.
When the Government of India wanted to remove the Managing Director, who was the nominee of the Suzuki Motor Corporation, at that point of time, the Suzuki Motor Corporation did not agree to that. After Shri Bhargava's retirement, when Shri Bhaskarudu was appointed as the Managing Director of the company, the Suzuki Motor Corporation raised an objection. Shri Bhaskarudu is the nominee of the Government of India. They said that they do not like this gentleman to be the Managing Director. They want Shri Khattar to be the Managing Director.
Shri Khattar was removed as Director in 1996. He was removed from the post of Director. The process was started when the Congress (I) was running the Government and when the UF came to power, Shri Khattar was removed as Director. He was removed as Director because there was a serious allegation. He was a `planted man' of Suzuki Motor Corporation. He was not looking after the interests of the Government of India and he was Shri Bhargava's man. This was why the Government of India wanted to remove Shri Khattar and he was subsequently removed. He was a person who was removed by the Government of India, who was proved to be a man of the Suzuki Motor Corporation. The Suzuki Motor Corporation wanted that Shri Khattar should be the Managing Director of the company.
Madam, when the United Front Government did not succumb and surrender to the pressure of this multinational company, that is the Suzuki Company, there was an all out support from all the sides. I can quote from a letter written by Shri Pramod Mahajan to the then Minister of Industries, Shri Murasoli Maran congratulating him for taking such a strong position. It says:
"The Government should tell the Japanese firm in clear terms that they will have to abide by the rules if they wish to continue in our country".
Then, what happened to this Government? Shri George Fernandes is now a member of the Cabinet. He had also written a very strong letter because he was very much against the continuance of Shri R.C. Bhargava. He raised this matter on the floor of the House. He demanded an inquiry by the CBI. He also wrote a letter to Shri Murasoli Maran congratulating him for taking such a strong stand. It was really a strong stand. Why is there a change in the attitude of the Government? We will have to find out. I support the views of Shri Jaipal Reddy when he says that in this serious issue not only crores of rupees are involved but also the prestige of our country.
Madam, what is the total investment of the Suzuki Company? It is a little more than Rs. 100 crore. What is the amount of money that they have taken away from this Company by investing Rs. 100 crore? Through dividend and through supplying spares, they have already received more than Rs. 100 crore. Shri Jaipal Reddy has already stated that it is not a giant company in Japan. Its share in the automobile industry is very small. Its share is only seven per cent. Then, why did the Government of India succumb and surrender to the pressure of the Suzuki Company? Why was the Parliament bypassed? Suddenly an agreement was signed bypassing the Parliament and at the back of the Parliament. The hon. Minister of Industry has made a suo motu statement in the Parliament. Why was the matter not discussed before the agreement? We could have discussed whether the agreement is in the interests of our country or not. There might be some underhand deal. We wanted to discuss this issue in the first phase of the Session. Time was allotted, but we were not allowed to discuss such an important issue concerning the interests of our country, prestige of our country.Why was it so? What did the Government say? What did the Minister say? He said:
"Keeping in view the need to settle the differences quickly and concentrate on more vital question of business development and technology upgradation, the Government of India have responded for a negotiated settlement outside arbitration proceedings."
May I know whether as per the agreement, technology was supplied by Suzuki Motors Limited in the past? They had not supplied. Now, they are proposing to invest Rs.8000 crore. The main purpose of this agreement is to grab a prestigious public sector company, Maruti Udyog Limited by the multinational company of Japan.
By this agreement, our interests have not been protected. The Minister of Industry will tell us, how the interests of our country will be protected by this agreement. Why has the agreement which was there in 1992 been nullified? We are opposed to increasing the market share of that company from 40 per cent to 50 per cent. We are opposed to that. At that point of time, the concept of public sector was diluted. When equal share was given, Suzuki Motors Limited was allowed to participate in the management with 12 Directors -- 50 per cent will be from Maruti or the Government of India and 50 per cent from the Suzuki Motors Limited. Why has this agreement been nullified? What was the urgency to go in for an agreement? What was the urgency to agree to the terms and conditions of Suzuki Motors Limited? There was no urgency. Why was this finalised at the back of Parliament? Why did the Government of India surrender and succumb to the pressure of Suzuki Motors Limited?
I demand that a Joint Parliamentary Committee, JPC, be constituted to go into all aspects of this agreement and sell out of this prestigious company, the Maruti Udyog Limited so that it submits a report to the Parliament. It is a serious matter and it has been done hurriedly. I demand that an inquiry by the JPC should be ordered to find out the motives behind agreeing or surrendering or succumbing to the pressure of the Suzuki Motors Limited. Thank you.
"> डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल (बेतिया): सभापति महोदया, आज यहां पर उद्योंग मंत्री द्वारा ८ जून,१९९८ के मारूति उद्योंग लमिटेड के संबंध में दिये गये वकतव्य पर नियम १९३ के अधीन चर्चा चल रही है। जब हमारा देश आजाद हुआ, उस समय हम लोग विदेशों से मोटरगाड़ियां आयात किया करते थे। हम लोग १९४७ में इस देश में आस्िटन गाड़ी देखा करते थे। उसके बाद इस देश में २-३ कम्पनियों ने गाड़िय़ां बनाना शुरु किया। पहले फिएट और उसके बाद PAL मोटर्स ने गाड़ी बनाने का काम शुरु किया। उस समय इंग्लैंड की मौरिस गाड़ी के
16.11 hrs. (Shri Basudeb Acharya in the Chair) सामान को आयात करके उस समय की हिन्दुस्तान नाम की गाड़ी में लगाया गया जो बाद में अम्बैसेडर के नाम से जानी गई। इसी बीच में स्टैंडर्ड नाम से भी एक गाड़ी आई लेकिन कुछ दिनों बाद यह बननी बंद हो गई। शायद एक-दो गाड़ी ही सड़कों पर देखी जाती थीं। तब केवल दो गाड़ियों यानी फिएट एवं अम्बैसेडर का निर्माण ही रह गया। जब मैं १९६१ में मैडिकल कालेज से डाकटर बना तो यही सोचा था कि मेरे पिता जी ने मेरे नाम से कोई गाड़ी कयों नहीं बुक की ताकि जब मैं डाकटर बन जाता तो गाड़ी मुझे मिल जाती। उस समय देश के लोगों ने गाड़ी खरीदने के लिये नम्बर लगाये और राशियां जमा कीं। उस समय २०-२५ हजार रुपया गाड़ियों के लिये जमा किया जाता था और लोग लाईन में लगे रहते थे। गाड़ी वषर्ों में मिलती थी। उसके बाद एक समय आया। श्री लालू प्रसाद (मधेपुरा) : आपके जमाने में आया। डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल (बेतिया): हां, मेरे जमाने में वह समय आया। देश की इस मांग को लेकर देश में एक कल्पना बनी कि कोई एक ऐसी गाड़ी आये जो आम नागरिकों के लिये बने। मैं स्व. संजय गांधी का नाम लेना चाहूंगा जिन्होंने एक गाड़ी बनाने का सपना लिया। उन्होंने न जाने कहां कहां से सामान और पुर्जे इकट्ठे करके, उद्योंग मेले में एक गाड़ी के रूप में दिखलाये। मैं भी उस उद्योंग मेले में आया था और देखने से लगा कि शायद कोई अच्छी गाड़ी बन रही है लेकिन उसका सारा सामान विदेश से घपले में लाकर बनाया गया था। उसके बाद यह मारूति उद्योग लि. के नाम से कम्पनी बनी। इसमें एक शैड के अलावा और कुछ नहीं बना। तब मारूति उद्योंग लि. तथा सुज़ूकी के साथ एक समझौता हुआ और सुज़ूकी मारूति के नाम से गाड़ी यहां आई। उस समय शायद इस गाड़ी का दाम ४६-४७ हज़ार रुपये था। देश की आजादी के बाद बहुत सी ऐसी.... श्री लालू प्रसाद : उसका मेकैनिक नहीं मिला करता था। डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल (बेतिया): अब तो गांव-गांव में मिल रहे हैं। मारूति का जितना विस्तार हुआ है उतना किसी और का नहीं हुआ है। सभापति महोदय, जब यह गाड़ी मार्केट में आई तो दाम कम था लेकिन आज कामन मैन को इसका दाम २ लाख से ज्यादा देना पड़ रहा है। उस समय जिस गाड़ी का दाम ४६-४७ हजार रुपये था, वह आज २ लाख रुपये से ऊपर की हो गई है। स्व. संजय गांधी के बाद इस देश में प्रधानमंत्री श्री राजीव गांधी बने। वे भी गाड़ी के शौकीन थे और गाड़ी खुद चलाया करते थे। वे इतने शौकीन थे कि गाड़ी लेकर अपनी सुरक्षा का ध्यान न रखते हुये मारूति चलाया करते थे। श्री भुबनेश्वर कालिता: चेयरमैन साहब, यह नियम १९३ के तहत बोल रहे हैं या और कुछ और कह रहे हैं। जो आदमी इस सदन में मौजूद नहीं, उसका नाम नहीं लिया जाना चाहिये।
... (व्यवधान) डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल :सभापति महोदय, मैं मारूति उद्योंग के बारे में बोल रहा हूं। सभापति महोदय :आप विषय पर बोलिये। डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल :सभापति जी, भारत सरकार का इसमें जितना शेयर है, भारतीय जनता पार्टी की सरकार जब बनी, उस समय कोई शेयर का परिवर्तन नहीं किया गया। इसके पहले वाली सरकारों ने शेयरों में ५०-५० प्रतिशत का बंटवारा किया।
... (व्यवधान) आप सुन तो लीजिए। लालू जी मेरे पुराने मित्र है। वह नहीं चाहेंगे कि मदन जायसवाल बोले। इसलिए बीच-बीच में टोक रहे हैं।
... (व्यवधान) श्री लालू प्रसाद :सभापति जी, आप समझ लीजिए कि ये कैसे डॉकटर हैं, कया डाइगनोसिस करते होंगे। अभी भूमिका ही बांध रहे हैं।
... (व्यवधान) श्री राजवीर सिंह (आंवला): आपके डॉकटर यही रहे होंगे, इसलिए आपकी तबीयत गड़बड़ रहती है।
... (व्यवधान) डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल :आज कारों के क्षेत्र में रॆवॉल्यूशन आया है। इस देश में मारूति के बाद बहुत सी गाड़ियां आ गईं। अब हमारे देश में मर्िसडीज़ बन रही है, होण्डा सिटी आ गई है। ऑटोमोबाइल के क्षेत्र में रॆवॉल्यूशन राजीव गांधी की देन है।
... (व्यवधान) आज जिस बिन्दु पर चर्चा हो रही है, मैं उस बिन्दु पर आ रहा हूं। संयुकत मोर्चा की सरकार के समय जो समझौता हुआ सरकार और मारूति उद्योग के बीच, वह समझौता मारूति कंपनी से मिलकर होना था और सरकार ने एक मैनेजिंग डायरॆकटर की नियुकित की। इस पर सदन में चर्चा भी हुई थी। चर्चा हुई कि सरकार ने सुज़ुकी कम्पनी की बात न मानकर अपनी मर्जी से यह नियुकित की है जबकि कंपनी के साथ मिलकर यह फैसला करना था। वह नहीं हुआ और इसको लेकर केस चला। आर्िबटरेशन में सुज़ुकी कंपनी गई। यह मामला लंबा खिंचता। अब उसमें जो नयी गाड़ियां और मॉडल आ रहे हैं ... (व्यवधान)
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): The hon. Member is not only casting reflection on the Government of that day but is also perhaps unconsciously letting down the interests of the country. I would say `unconsciously' because he may not be aware of the implications of his own formulation.
The Government, at that time, was perfectly within its rights to nominate its own MD. The MD was not to be chosen in consultation with the Suzuki company at all. This is a wrong contention on the part of the hon. Member. I do not think, being a Member of the Indian Parliament, he should be saying this. डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल :सभापति महोदय, बात यहीं तक सीमित होती तो सुज़ुकी को आर्िबटरेशन में जाने की ज़रूरत नहीं पड़ती। रॆड्डी जी का मैं आदर करता हूं और वे बड़े प्रखर वकता हैं। लेकिन मैं फिर कहना चाहता हूं कि अगर यह स्िथति होती तो उनको आर्िबटरेशन में जाने की ज़रूरत नहीं पड़ती। मारुति उद्योग में नई गाड़ियों को आना था, गाड़ियों की नई व्यवस्था होनी थी ... (व्यवधान)
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY :Sir, I want the Minister to clarify the position.
THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY (SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT): Every now and then you cannot ask me to reply ... (Interruptions) I would reply in my turn ... (Interruptions)
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): Sir, I would like to refer to an article by Shri Jairam Ramesh, who belongs to the Congress Party, on this subject ... (Interruptions) सभापति महोदय :उन्होंने तो आपको अनुरोध नहीं किया।
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :Sir, it has been published in the India Today magazine dated 22nd June, 1998 ... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: He has not requested for it. You please resume your seat. डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल (बेतिया): इस देश में बहुत सी पब्िलक सैकटर कंपनियां हैं, यह भारत सरकार का काम नहीं है ... (व्यवधान)
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :Sir, I am referring to the point made by Shri Jaipal Reddy ... (Interruptions) Sir, I am not casting any aspersion ... (Interruptions) Sir, the article says and I quote:
"The Joint Venture agreement gave an absolute right to each of the partners to appoint an M.D. by turn since 1997. It was India's turn...."
MR. CHAIRMAN: You please refer to it when your turn to speak comes.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI LALU PRASAD :We also are intellectuals ... (Interruptions) श्री खारबेल स्वाइन (बालासोर): आप सब कुछ हैं, आप मुझे यही सिखा रहे हैं, मैं तो नया आया हूं।
... (व्यवधान) इंटेलेकचुअल आ गये हैं, हम जो करते हैं, खराब करते हैं। आप चीफ मनिस्टर रहे हैं, आप जो बोलेंगे, वह सही है, हम जो बोलेंगे वह गलत है।
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not interrupt. Please take your seat. डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल :सभापति महोदय, सुजुकी कंपनी का बहुत सा डेवलपमेंट का काम था। भारत सरकार एक छोटी सी कंपनी नहीं है कि सुजुकी कंपनी से डर जाएगी। सुजुकी कंपनी जैसी पचासों कंपनियों को भारत सरकार देख सकती है, जापान की सैकड़ों कंपनियों को भारत सरकार देख सकती है। भारत सरकार की जिस तरह से तुलना की जा रही है, वह बड़े शर्म की बात है। एक छोटी सी कंपनी को लेकर भारत सरकार की तुलना की जा रही है। लेकिन मेरा व्यकितगत सुझाव है, मेरी व्यकितगत विचारधारा यही है कि सरकार को व्यापार नहीं करना चाहिए। यदि सरकार व्यापार करना सीख जाती या व्यापार करती तो आज आई.डी.पी.एल. बंद नहीं हो जाता, आज एच.ई.सी., रांची में अपना रोना नहीं रोती, आज मेकॉन मरने की स्िथति में नहीं आती। आज जितनी हैवी इंडस्ट्रीज हैं, चाहे ठभेल" हो या जो भी हो, सरकार को व्यापार नहीं करना चाहिए। सरकार ने जो फैसला लिया है, सुजुकी कंपनी के साथ जो एग्रीमेंट किया है, वह सही है। वह देश के हक में है। सरकार को व्यापार में नहीं जाना चाहिए। सरकार गाड़ी बनाने लगे, सरकार बिजनेस हाउस बन जाए, यह सरकार का काम नहीं है। सरकार को देश के हर नागरिक के बारे में सोचने का अधिकार है।
... (व्यवधान) आज देश की इकोनोमी कयों चरमरा गई है, आज देश की हालत ऐसी कयों हो गई है।
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Swain, please take your seat. डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल :चाहे कोयला उद्योग था या जो भी उद्योग थे, जो नफे में थे, वे सरकार ने ले लिए। अब वे घाटे में चल रहे हैं। आज एच.ई.सी. कयों बंद हो गई, ठभेल" की आज कया हालत हो गई है। जितनी भी पब्िलक अंडरटेकिंग्स है इन्होंने देश की इकोनोमी को बर्बाद किया है और देश को अरबों रुपयों का घाटा उठाना पड़ा है। उसी को लेकर आज हमारे मित्र जो यहां बैठे हुए हैं, उन्हीं के नेता श्री मनमोहन सिंह जी ने यह तय किया कि इन कंपनियों के जितने लोग हैं, उन्हें फेज वाइज वोलन्टरिली रिटायर किया जाए। ऐसी व्यवस्था की गई और उनके शेयर बेचने शुरू किये गये। डा. मदन प्रसाद जायसवाल सभापति महोदय, इन कंपनियों के शेयर विदेशों में बेचे जा रहे हैं। आज इन कंपनियों की कया स्िथति बन गई है। हम आज घाटे का व्यापार कर रहे हैं। आज हम देश में औटोमोबाइल इंजीनियरिंग में एक बहुत बड़ी उपलब्िध हासिल कर रहे हैं। आप कया उस प्रव्ृात्ित पर रोक लगाना चाहते हैं? कया आप चाहते हैं कि हम सुजूकी के साथ समझौता न करें? सभापति महोदय, मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि सरकार ने सुजूकी के साथ जो समझौता किया है, वह सही दिशा में बढ़ाया गया एक कदम है, उद्योग की दृष्िट से, इस देश के हक में है। हम चाहते हैं कि इस देश में और नई गाड़ियां आएं और सस्ती कारें बनें। इसलिए सरकार ने जो फैसला किया है और माननीय उद्योग मंत्री जी ने जो वकतव्य दिया है, वह सही है। मैं उसका पक्षधर हूं और मैं उनका समर्थन करता हूं। इन्हीं शब्दों के साथ मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करते हुए अपना स्थान ग्रहण करता हूं।
">SHRI K. KARUNAKARAN (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM): Mr. Chairman, Sir, first of all I would like to congratulate Shri Jaipal Reddy for having presented the case very truthfully and convincingly. There are still a lot of things to come out. When the statement was being made by the Minister of Industry, on the floor of the House, I was very much anguished and pained. I was thinking, what had happened to the hon. Minister! I have high regards and respect for him. I have never expected such a decision to come from the Minister of Industry.
As is rightly said, I know the Minister is innocent. Even his Department was kept out from what transpired between Suzuki and the so called Government. What prompted the Government to go for this worst agreement which we never had in the history of our country? It is a sheer surrender for nothing. Probably, when the Minister would reply, he would say that a dispute was pending before the International Court which was detrimental to the progress of the industry. Now, what is the reference before the International Court? The only question before the International Court was whether the MD and the Chairman should be appointed with consultation or concurrence. This was the only issue before the International Court. Even if the worst happened it would not have been so worst than this. The Government and the industry would not have been affected as they have been affected today.
I am not making any allegation against the Minister or even against the Government because the Government is there only for namesake. I know that the officers of the Department concerned were not consulted. Even proper legal advice was not taken before entering into an agreement. Why was there the haste to enter into an agreement? There was a haste not only to reach an agreement but also to implement it. The agreement was signed on the 6th and the entire procedure with regard to the appointments of Director, Managing Director and Chairman, was completed by 9th. This is not the first time when Suzuki had tried to get Maruti in its fold. I would like to make it very clear from my past experience.
Suzuki has never fulfilled its promise; it has never carried out any agreement. When the equity share of Suzuki was raised from 20 per cent to 40 per cent, it was done with a definite understanding. The understanding was that Suzuki would hand over the technology to the Maruti. The condition was that within 10 years, the entire technology would be transferred to the Maruti. However, this has not been done till this date. One of the hon. Members was praising Suzuki for achieving this level of excellence but this was not its contribution alone. Contribution was made by our best talented technical persons and excellent management. The Government was protecting it all along. Even the Government did not allow any other company to compete with Maruti. Even for the export price, a blank cheque was given to them. When there was a lot of demand for Maruti, instead of going for open sale it was privatized. I am not going to elaborate it. Not only Suzuki did not fulfil the commitment but he threatened the Government at one stage. I did not forget to mention it because it was done in the presence of members. On being asked, why the technology was not being handed over, his reaction was, "I am not answerable to anybody. I may even face attack". So, he did not transfer most of the technology, particularly gear box technology which is the most important .I then coolly told him, "If India can make things which are produced today, do you think India will not be capable of replacing that".
I went to Italy for consultation. I do not wish to go further. He started strong action. The Government nominee Director (Marketing & Sales), as also the Managing Director were conniving with Suzuki management. What could the Government do? The only course left with the Government was to replace them. We were able to survive even with all these things. Today, Maruti has one of the best production levels in the country. All the three designs are marketable. But none of the technologies has been handed over to Maruti.
Now, an agreement has been arrived at by the Government and the Suzuki but not the Maruti and the Suzuki. Maruti is kept in the dark. The shareholders of Maruti include its workers. The Board of Directors of Maruti was not consulted.
It was placed before the Board of Directors for ratification in a hurry. I could not understand, why this hurry. The worst would have come from the court. If they say that it is not the consultation but the concurrence, why such a hasty decision has been taken? This cannot be taken unless something is behind it. I allege against the Government that there are certain underhand dealings which should be brought before this country. If this Government is sincere and honest, why was it not referred to a Committee as has been suggested by my friend? Why should the Government worry about it?
I am quite confident that this Government would be exposed and finally the decision will become the symbol of corruption. I do not say `X' or `Y', I say, the result of the Government decision.
As I have already said, within one week all the appointments were made. A person against whom the corruption charges were there, a person who was conniving with the Suzuki against the Government, is appointed as Joint Managing Director and later Managing Director. I would like to know what for he is appointed to such a post.
Sir, if you go through the history of the Maruti, Bhaskarrudu's contribution is commendable. I am not making any praise for the officer. He is a committed officer and is a very highly technically qualified person. Suzuki tried its best to win over him, but it could not. The reward which the Government is giving to a particular officer is, I do not wish to use the word of Dr. Swamy, impotent.
Sir, who is going to benefit out of it? What is the position of the Board of Directors today? The Board of Directors met immediately and appointed two committees -- The Purchase Committee and the Sales Committee. If this is necessary, we can have a number of committees because the Chairmen of the committees are the choice of Suzuki and members of the committees are nominees of Suzuki. That means, all the purchases and sales would be done by the Suzuki company, from their company to this company. No quotation were inserted, no other company was allowed to quote the price. Nobody was consulted.
The first decision of the Board of Directors was to increase the rate by four per cent and then by six per cent and eight percent and so on. If necessary, I am prepared to give all the details and proceedings of the Board of Directors, apart from the copy of the memorandum of agreement, which is with me. Now, what is the position? Will anybody come forward to purchase the shares of the company? Suppose the Government decides to release the shares, nobody will come forward with a reasonable price.
Now, I come to modernisation and expansion. When this agreement was made in the year 1992, Suzuki said that he would go for modernisation and expansion on his own. The money and technology would be brought by him. Later on, Suzuki approached the Government saying, `everything is ready, we want money.' Fortunately, at that time, somebody said that the Government could not afford money.
Depending on that, O.Suzuki approached me when I took charge as the Industry Minister and said, `the Government is not giving money; our Finance Minister has said that he cannot spare a pie for the Public Undertaking and so on'. Though he did not want to put the money, he said, `unless we get money, we would not be able to do this'. I said, `you have promised us that you yourself have the money, technology and everything, why have you taken this stand now?' Anyhow, I told him to give a project report. I said, `when the report is accepted by the Government, I will make money available to you within 24 hours. But before that, you should give me a project report'. He took months. He did not send the project report. I sent reminder after reminder. He did not send the report.
Anyhow, forget about that. What is the situation today? As per the agreement, the Managing Director can be appointed only with the concurrence. This time, it is the turn of the Government. If Suzuki does not agree, we would not have the Managing Director, so also the Chairman. It is because Suzuki takes that stand, we will not take that stand. Now, Suzuki is very happy. The Chairman is his man. The Managing Director is practically name sake. The Additional Managing Director is appointed by Suzuki of his choice and he will be there till 2002 A.D. We do not know how long this Government will continue. I do not want to say anything at this stage. Then, where is the necessity for an agreement by this short time? We surrendered everything. I do not know whether we will be able to revive it after some time. But still I am hopeful we can revive it. When a situation arises, we can find out some loopholes. I am not worried about that. We can revive it. But what is worrying is this. Why such a nice and very honest Industry Minister whom I respect him, has done this?
PROF. P.J. KURIEN :He has not done it himself.
SHRI K. KARUNAKARAN :I know he is innocent. Why did his officers not know what happened? The signature was put by the Secretary on behalf of the President of India.
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): It was not by the Secretary. It was done by the PS to the Minister.
SHRI K. KARUNAKARAN :Government's order is the order of Rashtrapati. Technically, it is the order of Rashtrapati. Maruti Udyog was not consulted. Did you take the legal opinion on this? What was the legal opinion about sending a Director to sign the agreement in London? So, a number of dirty things have happened underground. This is a serious allegation. This should be brought into limelight. The only solution for this is to go for an inquiry by this House. Or else a Joint Parliamentary Committee is the best forum to go into it. My dear respected hon. Minister should concede to this demand. This is not only the demand from the Members of the entire House, but also the entire country. If you do not accept it today or tomorrow, God will punish you.
">SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE):Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. The hon. Members of the Opposition, while speaking, have raised basically four points. One, that the national interest has been compromised. They saod that it is a total sell-out; sell-out of the national prestige, and it is a total surrender and total surrender for nothing.
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY (MADURAI): Not for nothing; it must be for some consideration. ... (Interruptions)
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :I am coming to that.
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY :You do not agree to something like this without any think in return.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :And secondly, they have made an allegation that this Government has succumbed to Suzuki's pressure. That was also an allegation made by the hon. Members.
The second point is this. Why has this person, Shri Khatter been appointed? .. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do not interrupt him.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :Do not stop them. The hon. senior Members, when they were speaking, they have told me to learn etiquette. I will also tell them the same thing.
Why has Shri Khatter been appointed? This is a point they have raised.
The third point they have raised is about the urgency and the haste in making such an appointment. And last but not least the hon. Members have raised a serious point that this should be enquired into by a Joint Parliamentaryt Committee. These are the four points that have been raised by the hon. Members from the Opposition.
First I will deal with the point of national interest, that the natibnal interest has been compromised.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do not interrupt him.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :I am telling that the national interest has not been compromised. At least the Government led by hon. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee will never compromise. In any case, everybody knows what type of person Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee is and the Government he is leading is incapable of compromising. (Interruptions) The hon. Members were asking on what ground it was done. Shri S. Jaipal Reddy was mentioning about the national interest, why it was done, and he had also spoken about the interest of Japan. I am telling that the Government did not do anything of that sort. श्री लाल मुनी चौबे :सभापति जी, मेरा पाइंट ऑफ आर्डर है। जब ५०-५० की रेशों में शेयर दोनों का है तो प्रबंधन या व्यवस्था के नियम कया हैं? सभापति महोदय : किस नियम के मुताबिक आप पाइंट ऑफ आर्डर रेज कर रहे हैं? श्री लाल मुनी चौबे :नियम के मुताबिक यह है कि जब व्यवस्था का प्रश्न उठे तो सारी कार्यवाही ठप्प हो जाए। सभापति महोदय : चौबे जी, आप बैठ जाइये, आपको कोई पाइंट ऑफ आर्डर नहीं है। श्री लाल मुनी चौबे :जब कोई नियम नियमन का नहीं बनाया गया है तो व्यवस्था कैसे होगी और बहस किस चीज पर हो रही है, यह निर्रथक बहस है, यही मेरा कहना है। सभापति महोदय : चौबे जी, आप बैठ जाइये।
Nothing will go on record, except what Shri Swain says.
(Interruptions) * SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): I want to say that the Government has taken the right decision.
What has happened after Pokhran-II? After Pokhran-II, many countries in the world like America, Japan, England, etc., went on speaking against India and went on speaking about imposing sanctions against India.
I would like to say that Suzuki is a small company. It is having seven per cent of the market share in the automobile industry of Japan. It cannot sway the economy of Japan. I know it. But I can say that, through this, we had sent a strong message to Japan that we are prepared to compromise.
Sir, as we all know, when this Pokhran-II test took place, Japan was speaking in the loudest terms that more sanctions should be imposed against India. But after the Suzuki compromise, all the talks of sanctions to be imposed has been stopped by Japan. I can tell you that it is a total coup by the Government of India. India is willing to compromise on certain things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not Recorded What is the foreign policy of the country? Foreign policy means to protect the interests of the country. If the interests of the country are to be protected, we can do it by compromise. By having a compromise with Suzuki Company, we have sent a very strong message to Japan and to the rest of the world that India is willing to compromise. This is the first message we have sent.
It was mentioned here that Shri Bhaskarudu is a patriot. We know that he is a patriot. He is an efficient officer. He has been there for a very long time. But does it mean that an honest man, an honest officer will not be removed at all? If he is removed, then they say that there is an underhand deal.
Secondly, Shri Jaipal Reddy was mentioning that there is no such rule that there will be consultation with both the parties. But I am referring to one of the articles written by Shri Jairam Ramesh, belonging to the Congress. This is published in India Today issue of June 22, 1998. I will just read out three lines.
"His stand was the joint venture (jv) agreement gave an absolute right to each of the two partners to appoint an M.D. by turn, he was only exercising that right. Suzuki's stand was the agreement provided for consultation and concurrence before the appointment of an MD.
Finding Maran unrelenting, Suzuki took India to the International Court of Arbitration, where hearings were expected to commence on July 8."
I am telling you that there was such a provision and because there was such a provision, Suzuki could go to the court.
Now, a compromise has been reached with the Suzuki Company, I thank the Government for reaching a compromise. Suzuki Company has withdrawn the case from the international court of arbitration.
Thirdly, what was the urgency and what was the haste in doing this? You must have understood the urgency from the points which I have raised. The message was supposed to be sent to the world that India is prepared to compromise. I can tell you that that was the urgency.
Finally, before concluding, I would like to say my last point. They say that an underhand deal has been made. (Interruptions).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Swain, Shri Ambedkar is on a point of order. Under what rule is your point of order?
SHRI PRAKASH YASHWANT AMBEDKAR (AKOLA): Under rule 377. The hon. Minister has said that they are ready to compromise. May I know on what matters they are ready to compromise?
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Please take your seat.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :Now, they are saying that there has been an underhand deal and this should be inquired into by a Joint Parliamentary Committee. I can understand if a person like you is making this allegation, I can understand when the hon. Member, Shri Jaipal Reddy made this allegation, but I cannot understand when this is made by an hon. Member of the Congress party, the party whose eighteen Members are now in the dog-house under the charges of corruption and whose Prime Minister is now running to the court everyday. That party is now making the allegation that we have made an underhand deal. That is a very serious allegation that the Congress party is making against us. I can firmly say that the Government of India, led by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has come to power to give a transparent Government. It is a change for the better and it is a change for honesty and integrity.
Lastly, I say that this Government is not a businessman. The Government should not enter into business, be it of car or anything else. So, the Disinvestment Commission should chalk out a programme for the privatisation of the Maruti Company. The Government should not intervene in this so that the Company will go to private hands. The Government should not have any involvement in this so that there will be no allegations like underhand dealing and all that.
So, suggesting that there should be total privatisation of this Company, I thank you for giving me this opportunity.
">SHRI V.V. RAGHAVAN :Mr. Chairman, Sir, I strongly support the suggestion put forward by Shri Jaipal Reddy to refer this matter to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for going into all this shady episode ...(Interruptions). श्री चन्द्रशेखर साहू(महासमुंद): सभापति जी, इसमें कितना टाईम लगेगा? सभापति महोदय :अभी बहुत सारे स्पीकर्स हैं।
SHRI V.V. RAGHAVAN (TRICHUR): Sir, our hon. Prime Minister, while presenting the National Agenda of Gvernance, emphatically said that `India will be built by Indians'.
16.58 hrs (Shri P.M. Sayeed in the Chair) That is the content of the whole approach of the BJP in these matters, why blame Shri Sikander Bakht alone? So, as my friends pointed out, after Pokhran, the entire Government is running after multinationals. The Prime Minister's Office has cleared dozens and dozens of proposals giving entrance in the most key sectors of our economy, including our mineral wealth, to multinationals. Now, the slogan `India will be built by Indians' should have been changed during these 100 days' action in favour of the multinationals, to `India will be built by multinationals'. Not only the Maruti Udyog, not only all udyogs, the entire economy is being dismantled to give chance to multinationals to capture it.
17.00 hrs. In the name of Pokhran and sanctions, the way out that the Government has thought of is to invite the multinationals, open our markets to the multinationals and give them 74 per cent of our company's investment as also the management. So, the learned and the experienced leader Shri Sikander Bakht is the victim of this policy. Surrender to the multinationals is the motto of the Government. He could not be blamed alone. This shoddy and shameful agreement was reached at in a hasty manner. I read in some newspapers that Shri Bakht is a man of speedy decisions. If we include whatever the former Minister for Industry, Shri Karunakaran put it, there must be some shaddy affair in the speedy agreement.
Sir, I am not so close to you but I have been watching from a distance that you have put in a very long service. Though people may not agree with your political understanding yet your services and maturity are appreciated. But this Maruti affair is gradually developing into a tempest. If your long service and good name not to be drowned in this tempest, it is better I suggest that you agree to a Joint Parliamentary Committee enquiry into this matter so that your role can be cleared of it. The forces behind this deal which compelled you to agree to this episode can be revealed to the nation and the House.
Sir, my young friend was saying that the message which went to Japan and other countries by signing this is in our favour. Is it so? Japan is the toughest country with Australia who are trying to harm us. Is it not correct? Australia and Japan, the two countries are out to harm us in the name of Pokhran tests. Is that message went after the Suzuki agreement? The policy makers in Japan do not consider Suzuki at all and the message went to the other countries is that India is surrendering and that they can have more share from this great country. That is the message went out. They are doing it. The Americans are saying one thing and sending all their multinationals and all their private companies to India. They are saying that this is the time when you can get as much as you can and they are getting it. Britain is sending and Europe is also sending. Gradually, within four months, more multinational companies have entered into our economy and markets. That is the dangerous trend now prevailing in all these deeds and decisions.
I know, these Agreements including this Zusiki Agreement, come from the Prime Minister's Office. The decisions are taken there and the Prime Minister's Office are guiding all these things. I do not know why they are worried so much after Pokhran that they are surrendering to the multinational companies including the Suzuki. The man I know, Shri Sikander Bakht, would not have agreed to this unless the Prime Minister's Office had compelled him to sign this Agreement. Therefore, to clear all this shaddy atmosphere, it is better to agree to a JPC inquiry. That is my request.
">SHRI T.R. BAALU (MADRAS SOUTH): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Motion moved by Mr.Jaipal Reddy and others. Mr. Sikander Bakht is one of the elder brothers of mine. We were closely associated in the Rajya Sabha from 1986-92. I can never forget the friendship that we had. But because of pressure from the top level of his Government, he had to abide by and go by this Agreement. So, he had succumbled to their pressures. There is one proverb in Tamil which says "Padikkiradhu Ramayanam, Edikkiradhu Perumal Kovil". The person will read Ramayana but at the same time, he would not hesitate to dismantle the Perumal Temple, the Rama Temple.
Here is the National Agenda set out by the present Government which says, "We will continue with the reform process, give it a strong Swadeshi trial to ensure that the national economy grows on the principle that India shall be built by Indians." All right, this is the Swadeshi ideal. But as I said, a person who would read Ramayana, would not hesitate to dismantle the Rama Temple; in the same way, they also preach Swadeshi but promote Videshi. This Government has betrayed Indian people by handing over the management to the Suzuki of Japan. We feel, it is a total sell out. It is a shameful act of this BJP Government. They are preaching Swadeshi and adopting Videshi.
When they were in the opposition, they were opposing the then Government for entering into an agreement with Enron. When they came to power, within 13 days, they had approved the power project and they had gone through the counter-guarantee agreement.
Now, a Government company, the company which is managed by the Indian people and conducted by the Indian people has been handed over on a silver platter, the Suzuki Motors of Japan.
That is why, I have quoted that proverb. What is the pros and cons? Let us discuss.
The Managing Director and the Chairman will be appointed by Suzuki. The royalty from 1.4.97 will be released to Suzuki. The weak case filed by the International Court of Arbitration, by the International Chambers of Commerce will be allowed to withdraw peacefully. The most undesirable person by name Mr. Khatter who has disobeyed our Government directives will be managing the whole show and will be appointed as the Managing Director by the Suzuki.
Sir, will it be all right? Will it not be detrimental to our interests? Once again, Mr.Bhaskarudu, a true Government official, an honest Government official, a top-ranking official -- we have never come across such a person -- a man of high calibre will be sent out within two years and four months, that is, on 31.9.1999! Sir, in this episode and in this agreement which our hon. friend Shri Sikander Bakht has entered into, he has not even got the courtesy to consult the sitting M.D. of Maruti Ltd. I am also a Managing Director of a particular company. Whenever things happen, we always consult. We have to consult. But here at the same time, even the Managing Director has not been consulted or taken into confidence during the discussion to conclude the Agreement. Maruti is going to have two Managing Directors. There will be lots of business magnates here. Sir, I want to know, is it used for the corporate sector? We have never heard of the Indian corporate sector where two Managing Directors will be managing a company except in the case of Maruti which is going to be managed by 2 M.Ds. It is a joke of the century.
I am very much sorry to say this. Mr. Sikander Bakhtji, you have been a very good person, tall and towering personality with high probity in public life. But unfortunately, after having become the Minister, you are succumbing to the pressure of your own party.
This is not good. That is why, I demand you to see that a Joint Parliamentary Committee is set up to see that you are vindicated. That is my humble submission. I know, you are a proper person but at the same time because of the pressure, you have succumbed. Sir, under what pressure you have succumbed, we want to know. The Government, the whole Opposition and the entire countrymen want to know whether you have succumbed to the pressure or you yourself voluntarily have done it. That is what we want to know.
With these observations, I thank Shri S. Jaipal Reddy for raising this discussion.
">PROF. P.J. KURIEN :Sir, I thank you for calling me. I will not take much time of the House. About the agreement, much has been said. I would simply say that the agreement is nothing but a sell-out. When this Government talked about swadeshi, one would have thought that, at least, on swadeshi principle, they will be sincere enough. But unfortunately, their action has proved that they are only doing a lip-service to their own principles which they pronounced on the top of their Agenda. I am sorry to say this. I was so disappointed to read this agreement. How can a person like you can allow this? He was my neighbour in Shahjahan Road. I know him as a very good person. But I am surprised, of all the people, how can he agree to this kind of an agreement? If he did not agree to it, then today he may have to speak against his conscience. I have no doubt about it.
What was the necessity to by-pass the Maruti Board? We speak a lot about autonomy. What is the autonomy? My hon. friend, a young Member from the Treasury Benches said that this was done to send some good message to the multinationals. Yes, today you have given a message to the multinationals.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :I have not said `multinationals'. I have said `to the world'.
PROF. P.J. KURIEN :Okay, to the world through multinationals. I am sorry, you have sent a message to the world that for the first time the Government of India, which speaks so much about Swadeshi, will compromise on the national interest.
A good friend spoke about corruption and all that. I have been a Member of this House for the last 19 years. There was no occasion when even the Opposition had alleged that the Government compromised on the national interest. But I charge that this is a case where you have compromised on national interest. Very sad. This is all I can say about this.
What is the message you have given to the workers? You have given to these patriotic workers a message that only if they dance to the tune of the Suzuki foreign master, they will be there.
One may agree or disagree with Shri Bhaskarudu. But I know one thing. He is one officer who fought against the onslaught of the Japanese Suzuki. Obviously, everybody knows this. But he is being punished. For what? You have given a message to the patriotic workers of Maruti Factory to dance to the tune of the Japanese master and not to the Indian interest. It is a very wrong signal that you have given.
What is the worth of the company? I do not know, it has already been said. Maruti has spent Rs.100 crore. Today the company is worth about three billion dollars. What is its turnover? It is more than Rs.8000 crore.
17.18 hrs (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) What is the profit? I am talking about the turnover in Indian rupees. According to the figures which are available with me, the profit is Rs.977 crore. The company was a good example of public sector undertakings. What have you done with it? You have sold it for nothing.
I have a question to ask you. Please tell us what you have gained. What did this country gain by this settlement? He may not have got anything, but maybe somebody else, I do not know. I know him. I say that he may not have gained anything. But I cannot say that about some of his friends. So, he is a good man in bad company. This is the problem. Please tell us what this country has gained out of this agreement executed in ugly haste.
What did we gain. The hon. Member, Shri K. Karunakaran, who was a former Minister of Industry said about the case in the international court. The only question was that concurrence should be sought in the appointment of the Managing Director. Even if we had lost the case, we would have been in a much better position. Why did you do this?
Then, why was this done bypassing the Board? Why was this done bypassing your own Ministry, even without the knowledge of your Secretary? Why was this done in the absence of your Secretary? Why was your Private Secretary forced to sign it? Did you take the advice of the Attorney-General of India? If you had taken it, please take us into confidence and tell us what the advice of the Attorney-General of India was. A company with a turnover of Rs.8,000 crore is being sold out for nothing, not even taking legal opinion. Even if you had taken the legal opinion, you did not go by that. This is nothing but a crime. I have nothing personal against anybody but I am very sorry to say that this Government has stooped to this level.
Shri Jagdish Khattar was found to be a stooge - I am sorry to use that expression - of the foreign company which was trying to snatch this company through all dubious means. Without conducting an inquiry when there are charges against him, you have made him the Managing Director. And what is the position now? The Chairman belongs to them and the Managing Director is their nominee. We have a fifty per cent share but what is the guarantee that the Government's interests will be protected? I believe that the Chairman has a casting vote. He must be having it. They can do whatever the Japanese Government and the Suzuki Motor Corporation want. Even otherwise, they have a majority. I am sorry that such a big company is being given out to a multinational for nothing.
Where is your swadeshi spirit? Where is your patriotism? I am sorry to say this. I am not questioning anybody's patriotism but I have no doubt that what you have done is a crime against this country. I am sorry for making harsh remarks but I am forced to make these harsh remarks. Today, the position is that they have a majority in the Board, with the Chairman belonging to the Suzuki Motor Corporation. They can buy the shares from the market - it is eighty per cent - and take full control of the whole company. What is your guarantee against that? This is such an objectionable agreement which you have entered into. Therefore, I cannot but join the hon. Members who have requested for a Parliamentary probe into the whole episode.
If your hands are clean, why do you worry? If you think that this was done with the best interests of the nation in mind, why do you worry? Please agree to have a Parliamentary probe so that the nation would know the truth. I do not want to say anything more. Unless you do it, I feel, you will have to come back to be my neighbour. Let it not happen. So, please agree for a Parliamentary probe so that the country knows the truth.
With these words, I conclude.
SHRI MURLI DEORA (MUMBAI SOUTH): Is it correct that Suzuki was ready to buy the entire 100 per cent equity at the market price or at a very high price in Maruti? Can the Minister respond?
SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT: Not right way, but I will respond.
">DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY (MADURAI): This Maruti deal, underhand deal, is perhaps the most stinking sellout that this country has witnessed in the last fifty years. I am not surprised that the BJP Government has carried out this sell out. In 1996, when they were there for only thirteen days the first act they did was to underwrite the counter guarantee of Enron Corporation after running a huge campaign against it -- Swadeshi jagaran and what not.
Having done this campaign the first act in thirteen days without one day's mandate, they ratified the counter-guarantee agreement and today Enron is slated to sell electricity at one of the highest rates in the world. It is almost Rs.4.50 per kilowatt per hour. Enron has set aside Rs.60 crore for educating Indian politicians. it had been admitted by Enron in the US Senate that we have set aside Rs. 60 crore to educate Indian politicians. How much of that has gone into the education? That education is now seen in the Maruti sell out.
Sir, Maruti is in fact has to be looked at from the point of view of its infrastructure. All overheads were given practically free to that company. A huge estate, buildings, factory were all provided at the State expense. The Suzuki Company which is taking over the Maruti does not have to pay a penny for those overheads. If you have to advertise in the world that all these overheads would be provided free to set up factories for making cars -- the lands will be free, the buildings will be free, the factories will be constructed by the State and of course the Indian labour is one of the cheapest in the world -- there will be a long queue of people wanting to set up companies in our country. Suzuki has got hold of this company. I do not want to go into the legalites of what concurrence means or what it does not mean. Today, everybody knows what the bottomline is. It is the Suzuki has taken over that company and there is nobody to protect if anyone goes against this company. Of course, there will be nobody to protect them till 15th August. Before that date we hope to have a new Government and we can undo this.
The second factor is that the technology that has come from Suzuki all these years since 1984 has been paid for almost three to four times. It is a second generation technology. The prices charged by Suzuki to Maruti was CIF, but we exempted them from excise duty payments, customs duty payments, and so on. Today we have a situation where the Company is not only taken over, but the MD who is to come in the year 2000 is already named. How can the present MD, Shri Bhaskarudu possibly function now, knowing that the MD who is going to succeed is already named and the date has also been fixed?
Obviously the fraud of the BJP is in talking about swadeshi where a company was getting progressively indigenised. Maruti was being progressively getting indigenised; the name `Maruti' became known as an Indian car. But that process of indigenisation has been completely set aside. It has been done by them. They themselves have admitted that they wanted to send a signal that they are ready to surrender to foreign interests after the Pokhran-II tests. Their own representative have said it. That is what we are seeing everywhere, whether it is in the form of a letter written by the Prime Minister to Mr. Clinton, petitioning him for the threat that he is facing from China as if we do not face any threat from the United States or the sell out of the Maruti.
We are seeing in the papers that everybody is now prostrating before Mr. Talbott. After all Mr. Talbott is a junior official. He has come here and he is treated like a commissar from the United States! Practically, everybody is falling at his feet. At the same time, the Atomic Energy Commission's Chairman is denied a visa. Therefore, it is a part of that culture.
I do not know whether this Minister has anything to do with the decision making because I know that in every Ministry two RSS men have been appointed as Officers on Special Duty, one to look at the files and the other to make the calculations -- the right kind of calculations. I can name the two officers because I know all of them personally and I have seen. I can identify them by their faces. I know their names. Every Ministry - whether it is Power, Industry or Finance - has got two RSS men appointed as OSDs, one to only filter the files that will go to the Minister and the other to make the calculations which are difficult for the Minister to make. But they can make them and take into account various factors.
Therefore, if the Government has nothing to hide and if the Minister is not* let them appoint a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Sir, you have found out that it is not an unparliamentary word. ... is not an unparliamentary word. It means powerless. They may have wrong ideas because they have got all kinds of wrong ideas. But I am telling you that this is the weakest Government that we have since 1947.
They have surrendered on every issue and this is another issue of surrender. If they have nothing to hide, let them appoint a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.
">SHRI PRAMOTHES MUKHERJEE (BERHAMPORE) (WB): Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to express our views on the discussion initiated by our hon. friend, Shri Jaipal Reddy. Sir, I strongly associate myself and my party with the views expressed by my hon. friend, Shri Jaipal Reddy.
The history of Maruti-Suzuki affair is known to the people of our country and the people of the business world. How the equity share of the Suzuki has been raised from 40 per cent to 50 per cent, how replacement of the Managing Director took place, how the Suzuki went to the International Court, what was the compulsion of the Government to come to an agreement, all these things are known to the people. We need not enter into the details of these things because our friend Shri Jaipal Reddy has given a very fine background note of this whole affair of the Maruti-Suzuki.
I can arrive at this conclusion that the agreement made by this Government is nothing but a complete surrender to the terms and dictats of the foreign multinational company, the Suzuki Motors Limited.
Sir, it is a fact that the Government is committed to Swadeshi in the National Agenda. The Government is also committed to good governance by consensus. Does this Government indicate any feature of Swadeshi? Or does this Agreement indicate any feature of good governance by consensus? Did they come with a paper to this House to seek consensus? No. Let me quote our hon. Minister, Shri Sikander Bakht's comments on this Agreement...(Interruptions)...The hon. Minister, Shri Sikander Bakht made a very nice comment on this Agreement. He has said that the Agreement was in line with the Government's Swadeshi agenda which welcomed foreign investment in high-tech area and infrastructure. I am sorry to mention that this Agreement does not express any feature of Swadeshi Government. It does not indicate any attempt of the Government to bring any high-tech and infrastructure areas into its consideration. The kind of technology which Suzuki can give has already given by it. Today, they have no more new technology to give to this motor car-making industry. Can the Government say that the Suzuki Company had done something in the development of the infrastructure of the motor car-making industry? They did nothing in respect of the infrastructure development of the car-making industry. The entire infrastructure was developed by the public sector undertaking, Maruti Udyog Limited. So, I can never agree with this decision of the Government which has come to an agreement. I oppose it and I protest it. At the same time, I express my suggestion here that the entire matter should be forwarded to the Joint Parliamentary Committee which will inquire and investigate into the matter.
Sir, Maruti Udyog Limited was given adequate protection at that time. Today, what kind of a protection can the Government give to it? It is not the question of Maruti Udyog Limited alone; it is not the question of an Indian Company only; but it is the question of public sector and joint venture companies also. By this way, any kind of an Indian joint venture company will go to the hands of the foreign multinational companies. You cannot avoid it. That is why, we oppose this and say that this Agreement has destroyed the national interest of our country. Our national interest has been subservient to the terms and dictates of the foreign multinational companies. This is the credit which the Government can get from us.
For the last ten years, we have heard about privatisation and globalisation of our Indian economy. But is it allowed for the Suzuki to take over charge of the entire Maruti Udyog Limited without making any investment for the development of infrastructure? Does it indicate the nature of globalisation? Not a single country belonging to the third world can allow such things. It never indicates any step towards globalisation of the Indian economy. What you have done is nothing but opening a huge market before the multinational corporations. You have opened a huge kingdom before the multinational corporations so that they can loot and make profits. This is what you have done. We are also aware of the features of the World Trade Organisation. We have criticised the policy of the Government and their attitude towards the World Trade Organisation.
But in this case, just before me, our hon. friend, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, told us that they could tender and the best companies of the world could come and bid here for taking over the management of the Maruti Udyog Limited and not of Suzuki alone. The World Trade Organisation did not instruct Suzuki to take over this charge. It is not the desire of the World Trade Organisation. But it is the desire of the Suzuki Motor Car Company only. They have taken over this charge by some means.
I cannot say that this deal is an underhand deal. But a foolish activity of the Government has compelled us to say that there is an underhand dealing for such an activity. This has destroyed our national interest. This has destroyed our national prestige and sovereignty of the economy. So, I propose that the entire matter should be referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for investigation into the matter.
With these words, I conclude my speech.
">DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY (VISAKHAPATNAM): Sir, I must speak for five minutes. ... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: The time is very short.
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY :There is no question of speaking for less than that. I must speak for five minutes.
SHRI P.S. GADHAVI (KUTCH): How can he compel like this? ... (Interruptions) Has any Member compelled like this?
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY :My name is there.
SHRI P.S. GADHAVI : The name is there. That is all right.... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Dr. Reddy, you cannot say that you must speak.
... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: What is this?
... (Interruptions)
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY :He does not know that my name is there. ... (Interruptions) I take a very serious objection.
... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: No, no, please.
... (Interruptions)
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY (VISAKHAPATNAM): I never interrupt them. ... (Interruptions) I must speak. ...
(Interruptions)
PROF. P.J. KURIEN (MAVELIKARA): Sir, he is one whom the Congress Party has fielded. Please give him five minutes. All of us agree to it. ... (Interruptions)
SHRI RAMDAS ATHAWALE (MUMBAI NORTH-CENTRAL): What about the Republican Party? ... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Dr. Reddy, I am allowing you. But this is not good.
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY :Sir, I am sorry for getting angry with me.
MR. SPEAKER: No, no.
...(Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Dr. Reddy, please continue.
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY :My dear friends, I never get angry. I am a man who always keeps silence when anybody is speaking. I was hurt when I was suddenly interrupted. ... (Interruptions) When everybody talks, how could I speak?
Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will speak for nine minutes.
MR. SPEAKER: No, no; only for five minutes.
DR. T. SUBBARAMI REDDY :The first thing is that the entire House unanimously praises the hon. Minister, Shri Sikander Bakht, that he is a gentleman, a good man, and an honest man. There is no second thought about it. The entire House accepts it.
Secondly, the entire House was very much hurt, annoyed and displeased, concerned, became upset and found fault at the spontaneous action taken by the Government.
The third point is that the entire House, except one or two friends, firmly stated that there should be an impartial, independent and direct inquiry by a Joint Parliament Committee. He must say: "Yes, come on." If he feels that there is nothing wrong, he should himself announce to have an inquiry.
The next point is that Shri Bhaskaradu was appointed as Managing Director. And Suzuki wanted to go for arbitration. The point which surprises me is that ultimately they had the Chairman according to their choice. The MD's term has also been reduced on the plea that he will retire after completing the age of 58 years. Nobody has mentioned that point, that is, he will retire at the age of 58 years, and therefore, they could reduce the age.
Now, the age limit for retirement has been increased to sixty years and therefore, now the Government should also increase his term. These are the points which were not mentioned by anyone here. These are all new points that I am making ... (Interruptions) I would not like to repeat the points which have been made by Shri Jaipal Reddy, Shri Karunakaran and others.
Sir, M/s Maruti is a goldmine for the Suzuki. Their profit for the previous year amounted to Rs. 1056 crore and out of that Rs. 501 crore was from the Maruti. How does it matter for the Government of India to bother about them? India is a mighty country with a population of over 90 crores. Why should it bother about a small company like Suzuki? Japan, of course, is a great country and we respect them. But why should we bother about Suzuki? That is why, a million dollar question that arises in the minds of the people is, what bothered a person of your calibre, wisdom and integrity to get confused and say that Shri Bhaskarudu is an incompetent personality and his term should be reduced?
Sir, I do not want to repeat everything. Everybody here was unanimous about the fact that it has been done in haste and the Government has made compromises. Yes, compromise is important provided that gives us benefit. On on the one hand, it is a fact that Maruti being a goldmine for the Suzuki, it cannot afford to go from here and on the other hand, whatever technology was to be given by them has been given and nothing more is being provided by them now. The Government at least, could have had a bargain to the effect that if the Indian Government gives them the MD, they should give us the full technology. But that also was not done. Perhaps, you are not a businessman, had you been a businessman, you could have done it this way. I think, that is a mistake. I think, the compromise has been made keeping the political interest in view.
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to request the hon. Minister to declare the constitution of a JPC to consider the facts impartially and come back to the House with its report which would enhance the prestige and reputation of the hon. Minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Shri Prakash Ambedkar. Please speak for only two minutes.
">1747 hours SHRI PRAKASH YASHWANT AMBEDKAR (AKOLA): Mr. Speaker, Sir, at the outset I have to say with a heavy heart that everytime when the question of time comes, it is the smaller Parties that have to sacrifice.
Sir, one of the most effective signals that have gone out of this Agreement, which is also a part of the liberalisation process, that has taken place is that we need to look into the consequences that follow from this agreement. Many companies, which are private companies, had also gone into such kind of agreements with the Multinational companies, but in due course of time, those agreements broke up and the multinational companies took away the market set up of those companies.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Minister while justifying the Agreement that has taken place has said that there is going to be a transfer of technology. But I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether, of all the three models that are now being produced, have the Peugot company been approached for the engines and gear boxes? Is there any talks going on with them in this regard? If that is the case, then the whole justification that has been given by the Minister that there is going to be a transfer of technology is also not true.
Sir, the second point which I would like to make is that the BJP Government had gone to the international court over the Enron issue. But some agreement was reached with them after Ms. Rebecca Marc visited India and had a meeting with the top officials of the Maharashtra Government and the BJP leaders. Is it that, in this very case also some outside meetings have taken place and some outside settlement has been reached? Has this settlement taken place because of an outside meeting?
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is one way in which we are moving towards economic dependence on others. We have lost our voice in the composition of the Board. We have lost our sovereignty. We are losing our economic sovereignty. One company after another, if the Boards are taken away leaving the propriety right to the Indians, our economy is going to be jeopardised. May I warn the Minister, who is also later on going to deal with another issue which is not a corrective attempt but it is going to come to him from the Ministry of Petroleum, as far as my knowledge goes Bharat Petroleum and Burma Shell are on the verge of some kind of an agreement. Similar talks are going on, that is, controlling the management power through the Board of Directors. Will the Minister ensure, when these kinds of agreements take place, if the economic sovereignty of this country has to remain, the economic decision-making remains with the country? If the economic decisions are taken away then we may lose our economic sovereignty as also the political sovereignty. Therefore, I would request the hon. Minister, knowing him very well for his upright position and upright conduct, to agree to the demand made by Shri Jaipal Reddy, the mover of the Calling Attention, to form a Joint Parliamentary Committee and have a clear picture before the House.
">SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): Sir, my Party did not get a chance to speak. I am the only speaker from my Party. Please allow me to speak.
MR. SPEAKER: Shri Basu Deb Acharia spoke about it very well. Shri Radhakrishnan, you may speak next time.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): Sir, I have given my name. I would finish within two minutes.
MR. SPEAKER: All right.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I have got only a few words to speak.
At the outset, I support the move taken by Shri Jaipal Reddy. It is a very important discussion not because it is a matter concerning the Maruti Udyog Limited alone, it is a matter which must be an eye-opener for all those people who speak for liberalisation, multinational companies, market economy and all that. This is not a matter concerning a particular company alone. We all know that Suzuki is a very small company functioning in Japan. It is only one-seventh of the total automobile industry in Japan. How can such a small company influence a big country like India? It must be an eye-opener. Even the bureaucrats would be the witness to the sell out of India's interests. Even the pressure could be exercised over bureaucracy or the Government of India. There are people in the Government who are prepared to sell out our national interest to multinational companies. But it is not even a multinational company.
What will happen when we deal with multinational companies? We have such a bitter experience in dealing with a very small company, what will be our experience when we come to deal with big multinationals? Then, Mr. Speaker, Sir, you and I will be sold out, what to talk of the economy of the country! Our country is facing such a serious situation. Whenever we deal with multinational companies in future, we should be doubly cautious. That is the lesson which is learnt from this particular experience.
What has happened in this case is, our sovereignty itself is taken to the international court of arbitration. We do not have any arbitration court. Suzuki had taken the matter to an international arbitration court. It seems the Government got scared by this and thought, "Oh! The whole thing will come down. The whole thing will collapse." Was that the feeling in the Government? What prompted it to make such a hasty compromise? After all, what could the arbitration court do? Even if they pronounce an award, what will be the legal consequences? Why was the Government afraid of the international court? While we were safeguarding the national interests, what prompted the Government to make a surrender to such a small company? It is such a small company that such companies are called `blade companies' in our language.
We cannot believe Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a man of learning, the tallest man in the world, falling prey to this small company, Suzuki. What will be the result when Shri Sikander Bakht would come to deal with big companies? Shri Bakht is a very honest man, I concede that. But he himself will be purchased by big companies, if things go on like this. The entire nation will be sold out and there are people who can sell this country. So, I demand that the matter must be thoroughly investigated by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
"> १७५८ बजे उद्योग मंत्री (श्री सिकन्दर बख्त): सदर साहब, एक रस्म है कि जब इस किस्म की बहस होती है तो आखिर में बहस का जवाब देने वाला बात यहां से शुरू करता है कि मैं उन हज़रात का शुक़गुज़ार हूं जिन्होंने इस बहस में हिस्सा लिया। सदर साहब, मैं बड़े मिले-जुले जज़बात के साथ खड़ा हुआ हूं। ज्यादा उन हज़रात का शुक़गुज़ार हूं जिन्होंने अपने ख्यालात तो रखे, लेकिन साथ ही साथ मेरे लिए कुछ मीठे अल्फ़ाज़ भी कहे। मैं यहां बैठे-बैठे बिल्कुल इमोशनल हो गया था। मैं इस बात को मानता हूं कि हम इधर और उधर बैठते हैं तो जिस मसले की मुख़ालिफ़त के लिए कोई खड़ा हुआ है, मुख़ालिफ़त की बात करेगा। लेकिन मैं यह मानता हं कि सियासी इख़तेलाफ़ सियासी मुख़ालिफ़त ज़ाती मुख़ालिफ़त नहीं बननी चाहिए। हम लोग एक सदन में बैठते हैं, अलग-अलग पार्टीज़ होने के बावजूद हमारा रिश्ता है हमनशीनी का, साथ बैठते हैं, हमारा रिश्ता है हमसफरी का, सियासत के मैदान में हम सब दौड़ रहे हैं अपने-अपने रास्ते पर। उस रिश्ते का लिहाज़ रखते हुए हम लोगों को तल्ख़ अल्फ़ाज़ इस्तेमाल करने की जरूरत नहीं होनी चाहिए। मैं बिल्कुल दूसरे मिजाज़ का आदमी हूं। बीजेपी की सरकार में कुछ ज़िम्मेदारी निभा रहा हूं। इख्तेलाफ़ की बातें सुनते हैं, लेकिन मैंने कभी किसी पर ज़ाती हमला नहीं किया। जो गवर्नमेंटस गुजर चुकी हैं, मैं उन गवर्नमेंटस का जिक़ करके यह साबित करने की कोशिश कभी नहीं करना चाहता कि मैं ठीक हूं, सारी गल्ितयां उनकी थीं। मगर मुझे आज अपने बेहद अजीज दोस्तों, मैं रस्मी तौर पर बेहद अजीज नहीं कह रहा हूं, कयोंकि पार्िलयामेंट में जब लोग बोलने के लिए खड़े होते हैं तो यह आम बात होती है कि मेरे अजीज दोस्त, मेरे फलां-फलां हैं। लेकिन मेरी पार्िलयामेंट की सियासी जिंदगी में कुछ लोग ऐसे रहे हैं, जिनकों मैंने अजीज रखा है और उनमें से एक साहब जयपाल रेड्डी भी रहे हैं। सदर साहब, आज मेरे दर्द की इंतिहा नहीं रहीं जब मैंने जयपाल रेड्डी साहब को अपनी सतह से बेहद नीचे गिरते हुए देखा। एतराज की बात करें, मुझसे शिकायत करें, इस विषय की मुखालफत में पूरी आवाज उठायें। लेकिन गिरते-गिरते यहां पहुंच गये। मैं ८० साल का हूं, जल्दी मरने वाला हूं और मर जाऊंगा तो कब्र में भी यह बदनामी मेरा पीछा करती रहेगी। इस किस्म के भद्दे, नीचे, घटिया और गिरे हुए अल्फाज की उम्मीद मुझे जयपाल रेड्डी से कभी नहीं थी।
... (व्यवधान) आप बीच में मत बोलिये, जितना बोलना था वह आप बोल चुके हैं।
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): I did not say about him. I said about the Government.
SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT: He was addressing me. It is all right, now.
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): Sir, I must place this on record that I did not say about him, but I said about the Government. श्री सिकन्दर बख्त: गवर्नमेंट बूढ़ी है, गवर्नमेंट ८० साल की हो चुकी है, गवर्नमेंट को कब्र में जाना है। कब्र में तो सिकन्दर बख्त को जाना है। कब्र में जाने के बाद भी यह बदनामी गवर्नमेंट का पीछा करती रहेगी, किसको बच्चों का सबक बहला रहे हो। मैं अल्फाज को भूल नहीं सकता हूं, आपकी जबान से निकले अल्फाजों ने मुझे जख्मी किया है। सदर साहब, मैं यह बताना चाहता हूं कि जब मारुति के सिलसिले में मैंने पहली प्रेस कांफ्रेंस की थी मैंने उस प्रेस कांफ्रेंस मे यह कहा था कि मैं पिछली गवर्नमेंट का जिक़ नहीं करना चाहता हूं। मैंने उस प्रेस कांफ्रेंस में यह कहा था कि मुरासोली मारन नफीस आदमी हैं He is a nice man, I like him. मैंने यह कहा था। लेकिन जब बौछार हो गई यानी हमको मजबूर कर दिया जाता है कि हम अपनी वज़हदारियों को छोड़ें, हम जाती हमले का जवाब जाती हमले से दें या न दे। "फिर वज़हदारी एहतियात से घुटने लगा है दम, अरसा हुआ है चाके गरेबां किये हुए"। आज मेरा जी चाहता है कि मैं अपना गरेबां चाक करूं। मुझे अपनी वफादारियां छोड़नी पड़ी हैं। अजीब-अजीब किस्म के हमले हुए हैं। मैं कोशिश करूंगा, मैंने खुद नोटस लिये हैं, यहां जो-जो तकरीरें हुई हैं, उनका जिक़ जहां तक हो सके, वह मैं करूं। दूसरा प्रेस रिलीज के पहले फेज को छोड़कर जब दो-तीन रोज तक बहुत हमले मुझ पर जाती तौर पर होते रहे तो मैंने एक प्रेस रिलीज में यह कहा था -
"I do not wish to indulge in raking up the past history and reviewing the role of the predecessor Government nor do I like to drag the name of the predecessor Minister with regard to a situation which has been solely created by the approach adopted by him in the past." मैंने कहा यह गुनहगारी मैंने अपने आपसे की, कयोंकि मैं इन सब बातों को सुनते-सुनते तंग आ गया था, उलझ गया था कि मैं कब तक खामोश रहूं।
"However, in regard to Maruti an unfortunate situation has been created." वह बिल्कुल दूसरी बात है।
... (Interruptions)
MAJOR GENERAL BHUVAN CHANDRA KHANDURI, AVSM (GARHWAL): They have spoken so much, why do not they wait and listen now?
SHRI P.C. CHACKO (IDUKKI): He must come to the point. श्री सिकन्दर बख्त: आपका काम नहीं है, मैं सुनूंगा ... (व्यवधान) हां, आप ठीक कह रहे हैं।
... (व्यवधान) यह बात जयपाल रेड्डी साहब ने इस बात से शुरू की थी कि हम एक दूसरे के दोस्त रहे हैं और मैं आज भी उस दोस्ती को छोड़ना नहीं चाहता हूं। मेरा इरादा आज भी उस दोस्ती को छोड़ने का नहीं है। इसलिए मैं कोशिश यह कर रहा हूं कि अपना दर्द जाहिर कर दूं कि जयपाल रेड्डी से मेरे जिस किस्म के ताल्लुकात रहे हैं, वे उसी तरीके से जारी रहेंगे। इसलिए मैंने यह बात कही। मैं मारूति की बात कहता हूं। पहली बात तो यह है कि मैंने सब हजरात की तकरीर सुन ली है। श्री पी. शिव शंकर (तेनाली): अब तो उन्होंने वजाहत कर दी है। श्री सिकन्दर बख्त: उनके अब वजाहत करने से कया होता है। जब वे बोल रहे थे और जब मैंने उनको सुना, जख्मी तो मैं तब हो चुका था। वजाहत से मेरा जख्म कहां भरेगा। मैं कुछ उन बातों को कहना चाहता हूं जो मेरे लिए ताज्जुब की हुई हैं। मारुति का जिक़ हुआ है। मैं कोशिश करूंगा तमाम साथियों के सवालों का जवाब देने की। मारुति मुझे किस हाल में मिली थी, मैंने मारुति सुजूकी से कोई समझौता नहीं किया था, मारुति का अच्छा हो या बुरा हो, इसका जिक़ मुझे किसी तकरीर में नहीं मिला, यह कहने के लिए आप मुझे माफ करेंगे। सुजूकी का जिक़ मिला, अफसरान का जिक़ मिला, मैं उन अफसरान का जिक़ करूंगा। लेकिन मारूति का जिक़ करना चाहिए था कि मारुति किस हाल में हमें बिरसे में मिली और मारुति को जिन्दा रखने का कया तरीका होना चाहिए था, कया मारुति हमारी संपत्ित है या नहीं। मारुति आज हिन्दुस्तान की औटोमोबाइल इंडस्ट्री में टौप पर है। यदि मौजूदा सूरते हाल चलती रहेंगी, तो कया मारुति आने वाले कल भी औटोमोबाइल इंडस्ट्री में टौप पर रहेगी, कया मारुति में एक साल में नई टैकनालौजी आनी बंद हुई है या नहीं हुई है, कया मारुति में अपग्रेडेशन का सिलसिला जारी है या नहीं है, तमाम अफसानों का जिक़ हो गया, लेकिन असल बात का जिक़ नहीं हुआ कि मारुति को जिन्दा रहना चाहिए या नहीं। सदर साहब, दूसरी बात जो मेरे लिए ताज्जुब की रही है वह यह रही है कि मारुति जब से वजूद में आई, भयानक तरीन बात, जो एक चैप्टर लिखा गया था, कुछ तकरीरों में उसका हलका सा जिक़ हुआ था। जयपाल रेड्डी साहब की तकरीर में जिक़ हुआ। मारुति के ४० परसेंट शेयर थे लेकिन शुरूआती दौर में २६ परसेंट थे और फिर बाद में २६ परसेंट से ४० परसेंट कैसे हो गए, मैं उसमें नहीं जाना चाहता, लेकिन इतना याद जरूर दिलाना चाहूंगा कि जब २६ परसेंट दिए गए, तो वे कंसैशनल रेट पर दिए गए। २६ परसेंट के बाद जो १४ परसेंट दिए गए, वे कंसैशनल रेट पर दिए गए। ओरिजनल डाकुमेंट में तो २६ परसेंट शेयर सुजूकी के थे और १४ परसेंट शेयर और ले सकते हैं, लेकिन कंसैशनल रेट पर ले सकते हैं। यह बात करार में है। उन्होंने उस अवसर का फायदा उठाया और १४ परसेंट शेयर कंसैशनल रेट पर ले लिए। इस बात का भरपूर जिक़ किसी तकरीर में नहीं था कि मारुति कब बेची गई। मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि मारुति तो तब बेची गई जब ४० परसेंट इकिवटी शेयर की जगह उसके ५० परसेंट इकिवटी शेयर हो गए। वे १० परसेंट कयों दिए गए, कब दिए गए और किस रेट पर दिए गए और उनको १० परसेंट दिए जाने के बाद, १९९२ के बाद, कितनी सरकारें उसको गोद में लिए बैठी रहीं। जो बात आज उठ रही है सैल-आउट की और सरेंडर की, वह उस वकत कयों नहीं उठी जब १० परसेंट बेचे गए। वसत की बात कयों करते हो, खुली बात करो। मारुति तो तब बेची गई। मारुति तो उस समय बेची गई, जब हिन्दुस्तान के ६० फीसदी शेयर थे और ५० फीसदी कर दिए गए। उसकी तारीख मैं आप लोगों के सामने रखना चाहता हूं। वह बात लंबी है, लेकिन इस तफसील में मैंने उसको पढ़ा है। एक वकत तक तो लगता है कि किसी एडमनिस्ट्रेटिव तरीके से हम कदम-ब-कदम आगे सरक रहे हैं, लेकिन एक वकत के आने के बाद एकदम पता ही नहीं चला कि मारुति को १० परसेंट शेयर देने का फैसला किस तरीके से हुआ। पूरी तफसीलात मेरे पास मौजूद है। यदि आप मुझे वकत देंगे, तो मैं सब पढ़कर सुना सकता हूं। २६ परसेंट जब ओरिजनल थे तब का जिक़ है।
However, Suzuki was given option to subscribe and stake for additional number of shares as would cost the total number of its holding to constitute, of a percentage above 26 but not more than 40 per cent of the total shares outstanding. The subscription price was Rs.l00 per share.
CMD, MUL informed that Suzuki Motor Corporation would be willing to buy Maruti's shares at a premium of Rs.400 per share. Premium of Rs.400! मैने बीच का कुछ हिस्सा छोड़ दिया है जिसमें बहुत सारी मीटिंग्स का हवाला है। श्री आर.सी. भार्गव ने श्री सुरेश माथुर सैक़ेटी आई.डी. को लिखा।
Shares of face value of Rs.100 per share will be sold at Rs.5000. कया-कया हुआ, वह तो ठीक है। मतलब श्री आर.सी. भार्गव ने यह ऑफर गवर्नमैंट को दिया कि ५०० रुपये फी शेयर सुजूकी लेने को तैयार है। सुजूकी ने सजेस्ट किया कि हमको कम में देना चाहिए, १०० रुपये में देना चाहिए। उसके बाद श्री आलोक प्रसाद, डायरेकटर, पी.एम. आफिस ने श्री सुरेन्द्र सिंह देसाई को लिखा।
He has informed that FIPB has recommended the request of Suzuki. सुजूकी ने कहा कि हमको १०० रुपये में दीजिए। अब यह कौन थे। इसमें पी.एम. आफिस के सी.सी.एफ. आई. का जिक़ है। प्राइम मनिस्टर, फाइनेंस मनिस्टर और मनिस्ट्री ऑफ कामर्स, उन लोगों का हुआ। उसके बाद श्री आर.सी. भार्गव, सी.एम.डी. एम.यू.एन.एल. ने श्री सुरेन्द्र सिंह देसाई को लिखा।
They sent a proposal for FIPB informing that in pursuant to MUL's direction regarding conversion of shares it was carried out through Chartered Bank and it was arrived at a price of Rs. 264. कुछ डिटेल्स नहीं है।
The payment for MUL was made after assessment of price and determining the price of Rs.269 per share. इसके लिए वह तैयार थे कि ५०० रुपये में हम ले सकते हैं। ५०० रुपये भी मार्केट प्राइस से कम थे। मार्केट प्राइस में यह कम से कम १० परसेंट जाना चाहिए था। १० परसेंट जाना ही नहीं चाहिए था कयोंकि हिन्दुस्तान की ताकत मारूति उद्योग के अंदर कम हो रही थी लेकिन १० परसेंट शेयर भी गये। वह उस मार्केट प्राइस पर नहीं गये बल्िक कन्सेशनल प्राइस पर गये। सुजूकी को किसने बेचा? हिन्दुस्तान मारूति उद्योग लमिटेड को किसने सुजकी के हाथों में बेचा? यहां सैल आउट का जिक़ हो रहा है, यहां सरेण्डर का जिक़ हो रहा है लेकिन किसी ने यह नहीं सोचा कि यह जो सैल आउट हुआ है, इसका गुल भी १९९२ से आज तक जितनी सरकारें आई हैं, उनमें भी रचना चाहिए था। वह कयों खामोश बैठे थे? इस लाश को गोद में लिये हुए पिछली सरकारें कयों खामोश बैठी रही? मेरे अजीज दोस्त सामने बैठे हैं, मैं उनसे भी कहना चाहता हूं। यू.एफ. सामने बैठी है, उनसे भी कहना चाहता हूं कि आप खामोश कयों बैठे रहे। उस वकत एतराज कयों नहीं हुआ? अगर तुम सैल आउट के खिलाफ थे तो जब से सैल आउट हुआ है तब से उसके खिलाफ बोलना चाहिए था।
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): Mr. Speaker, Sir, this has been pointed out in this Committees's report. Nobody was silent. This was pointed out in this Committee's report. His party members were members of the Committee. श्री सिकन्दर बख्त: इस कमेटी का पर्दा मत लीजिए कयोंकि मैं बताने के लिए तैयार हूं। वह कमेटी इसके पहले की कमेटी थी। जिस वकत यूनाइटेड फ्रंट की सरकार नहीं थी। यू.एफ. की गवर्नमैंट ने गवर्नमैंट के लैवल पर इस सैल आउट के खिलाफ कया प्रोटेस्ट किया, यह मैं जानना चाहता हूं।
... (व्यवधान) आप रहने दीजिए। हर वकत बीच में मत बोलिये। अल्टीमेटली यह हुआ कि वह शेयर २६९ रुपये में बेच दिये गये। मैं अर्ज करना चाहता हूं कि जितने जोरशोर से उन्होंने यह कहा कि हमने बेच दिया, सुजूकी का यह हो गया, वह हो गया। अगर ज़ेहनों और दिलों के अंदर ईमानदारी होती तो इसका भी उसी जोरशोर से जिक़ करना चाहिए था कि हिन्दुस्तान के १० परसेंट शेयर बेचे गये तब किसकी सरकार थी। उस वकत इंडस्ट्री मनिस्टर कौन था? भारतीय जनता पार्टी तो नहीं थी, सिकन्दर बख्त तो वहां नहीं था। नाम ले सकता हूं कि कौन-कौन था।
... (व्यवधान) मैं नाम लेकर कया करूंगा।
... (व्यवधान) श्री रामदास अठावले (मुम्बई उत्तर-मध्य) : आपको गुस्से में रिप्लाई नहीं देना चाहिए।
... (व्यवधान)
"The senior-most persons who fulfilled these qualifications were found to be Shri Bhaskarudu, Shri Khattar, Shri Hansan and Dr. Kumar." श्री सिकन्दर बख्त: दिल्ली के हाई कोर्ट में भी इसका मुकदमा चला। युनाइटेड फ्रंट के इंडस्ट्री मनिस्टर के बारे में हाई कोर्ट की औब्जर्वेशन्स कया थीं, वह मैं आपको पढ़कर सुनाऊंगा। लेकिन मैं श्री खट्टर की बात भी आपके सामने रखना चाहता हूं। खट्टर साहब श्री आर.सी. भार्गव के नुमाइंदे हैं। मैं नहीं चाहता था कि अफसरों के चककर में पड़ूं कयोंकि हिन्दुस्तान की सरकार इनडविजुअल आफिसर्स से बहुत ऊंची चीज है। लेकिन नाम बहुत ज्यादा आया है इसलिए बताना चाहता हूं।
SHRI K. KARUNAKARAN (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM): I removed him.
SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT: It is all right. You must have done. What was the reason? You had a misconception or a conception that he is a man of Bhargava. But did you also know that Bhaskarudu was also appointed by Shri Bhargava and that initially he was Bhargava's man? (Interruptions). श्री खट्टर को इस ब्रैकेट में डालने की बात किसने की? हमने तो नहीं की। खट्टर साहब को बोर्ड का मैम्बर किसने बनाया? भारतीय जनता पार्टी ने तो नहीं बनाया। खट्टर साहब को कयों हटाया गया, उसका जिक़ आज तक कहीं नहीं है। श्री आर.सी. भार्गव का आज की इस बात से कया ताल्लुक है। पहले की बात थी, आर.सी. भार्गव के लिए हो सकता है कि मेरी राय भी वही हो जो आपकी है ... (व्यवधान)
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MAHABUBNAGAR): Please do not get emotional.
SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT: I am getting emotional. श्री सिकन्दर बख्त: मैं करूणाकरन साहब से यह कहूंगा कि पार्िलयामैंट में आने के बाद हाफ ट्रुथ से बात नहीं बन सकती, भरपूर बात कहिए, तब पता लगता है कि असलियत कया है, कया नहीं। हम लोग ज़ात शख्सी इनात की बिना पर चलते रहे हैं। खट्टर साहब आज भी हिन्दुस्तान की सरकार के ऐप्वाइंटी है। श्री खट्टर को सुजुकी ने एप्वाइंट नहीं किया लेकिन जिस तरीके से उसने हमारे एप्वाइंट किए हुए श्री आर.सी. भार्गव को अपनाया था, उसी तरीके से हो सकता है कि उसने श्री खट्टर को बेहतर आदमी माना हो। आप सुजुकी की राय के ऊपर अपनी राय रखने का हक नहीं रखते।
... (व्यवधान) मैं बता रहा हूं कि यह मामला काफी अफसोसनाक है और मैं इस वकत भी सोच रहा हूं कि आज जिस ज़हन के साथ मैं यह बात कर रहा हूं, मैं यह पढ़ूं या न पढ़ूं। ... (व्यवधान) श्री पी. शिव शंकर :बख्त साहब, ज़ज्बात में मत जाइए, हम बहुत पुराने दोस्त हैं। श्री सिकन्दर बख्त : नहीं जाता। आप कया बात कह रहे हैं। मैं वाकई ज़ाती हमले करने को कुछ नहीं समझता मगर मुझसे यह कह दिया जाए इतने ज़ातहमले हुए हैं, अंडर हैंड डीलिंग्स हुई हैं। मुझसे यहां आकर मेरे अजीज दोस्त ने जो कहा, उनके अल्फाज़ भी दोहरा सकता हूं। मैं बेहद तकलीफ के आलम में हूं। मैं एक बात बिल्कुल साफ कर देना चाहता हूं। जिन लोगों ने मेरा नाम मोहब्बत से लिया, मैं उनके सामने सर झुकाता हूं, उनका बेइन्तहा शुक़गुज़ार हूं। लेकिन साथ ही साथ उन्होंने यह कहा, सिकन्दर तो अच्छा आदमी है, लेकिन ऊपर से जोर पड़ा है, दबाव पड़ा है। मैं १०० फीसदी, १०१ फीसदी इस एग्रीमेंट को चलाने वाला अकेला आदमी हूं। मुझ पर प्राइम मनिस्टर आफिस का, प्राइम मनिस्टर का कोई दबाव नहीं पड़ा। मैं बजाते खुद इसका जिम्मेदार हूं, यह बता देना चाहता हूं। मुझे ताज्जुब होता है, शिव शंकर साहब, यहां कुछ लोगों ने, यहां तक कि मेरे अजीज़ दोस्त श्री कुरियन की जुबान से भी निकला कि मैं सिकन्दर साहब के बारे में तो नहीं कहना चाहता, लेकिन फिर भी कुछ है, जो साफ होना चाहिए। मैं आपसे सिर्फ यह कहना चाहता हूं कि इस किस्म के सवालात मेरे सामने आते हैं, I reject them off the cuff. I do not even care to react to them. They are so low. जिन लोगों की भ्रष्टाचार की गोद में सियासी परवरिश पाते हुए उम्र गुजर गई हो, आज वे सिकन्दर बख्त की तरफ उंगली उठाएंगे? कया तमाशा है, इस किस्म का तमाशा भी हमें देखने को मिल रहा है। मारुत ... (व्यवधान)
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Sir, we are all very fond of him. He is our asset. We request him not to get so angry. Maybe, he has full justification, but it will affect his health. We do not want him to fall ill.
SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT): Somnath Ji, I have controlled myself. अगर मैं यह हाई कोर्ट का फैसला पढ़ूं तो किसी मनिस्टर के लिए इज्जत का बायस नहीं होगा। मुझसे शिव शंकर साहब ने अपील की, मैंने यहां डाल दिया, नहीं पढ़ता। मगर मैं यह कहना चाहता हूं कि आप हजरात मारुति उद्योग के बारे में कितना कुछ सोचते हैं। उसके बारे में यह सोचिये कि मारुति उद्योग में हिन्दुस्तान का भी हिस्सा है, कया वाकई आप इसको दुरुस्त मानते हैं? मैं मेरे पहले वाले अजीज़ ने, जिनके लिए मैंने कहा, I consider him a very nice man. उन्होंने मारुति उद्योग को और पूरे हिन्दुस्तान को, हिन्दुस्तान के वकार को तराजू में बराबर से लाकर डाल दिया। कया यह हिन्दुस्तान इतना छोटा हो गया है कि इस किस्म के मामूली उद्योगों के साथ बराबर किया जायेगा? मुझे अपने अजीज़ दोस्त से शिकायत है। यह शिकायत होने के बाद मैं यह कहना चाहता हूं कि यह केस मुझसे कहा गया है, हमारे करुणाकरन जी ने एक बात कही थी, करुणाकरन जी ने कहा था कि सिर्फ हम नहीं, बल्िक यह पूरा सदन, बल्िक पूरा हिन्दुस्तान इस समझौते की मजम्मत करता है। मेरे पास एक डंकी लोड नेशनल प्रैस की एडीटोरियल्स की हैं, पढ़ूं? कया राय रखने का हक सिर्फ हमारे अजीज़ों को है? कया हिन्दुस्तान के मीडिया को राय रखने का हक नहीं है? ये ४००-५०० मेरे पास यहां भी पड़ी हैं। ये पढ़ना शुरू कर दूंगा तो आप हाउस छोड़कर चले जाएंगे।
... (व्यवधान) कुछ माननीय सदस्य : एक-दो तो पढ़ ही दीजिए। श्री सिकन्दर बख्त : अरे भाई, कहां तक पढ़ूं। इसमें थोड़ी दिककत हो गई है, मैं पढ़ने की कोशिश करता हूं, मगर नाम एवोइड करता हूं। एक तो यह कहा गया है, जो शीर्षक दिया गया है, "
A pig's breakfast from X's kitchen". मैंने वह नाम नहीं लिया।
"What should we call this conflict?..."
"The whole messy situation at Maruti Udyog Limited is a case in point. It was a pig's breakfast put on the table by Congress chefs for reasons that are still unexplained...." अनएकसप्लेन्ड है, यह मैं भी मानता हूं, मैं वहां तक नहीं पहुंचा कि हम २६९ वाली रकम पर कैसे पहुंचे हैं, यह अनएकसप्लेन्ड है।
It further says:
"The `sell-out' - in the literal as well as the metaphorical sense - came in 1992, when the X's Government conceded parity to Suzuki...." और आगे कया-कया है, बड़ा लम्बा-चौड़ा है।
"In 1992, `X' was in the saddle. And it was his Government that gifted parity in Maruti Udyog Limited to the Japanese outfit. I use the word `gifted' advisedly - Suzuki got away with paying only Rs.269/- per share as against their own offer of Rs.500/- one year earlier.
I note without comment that this sad episode was preceded by a visit to Japan by `X'." यहां भी उन साहब के साहबजादे का नाम है।
"For the record, again without drawing any inference, the now-famous `X', son of the then Prime Minister, had sought Japanese aid in an electronics venture that is now defunct...."
"I have always found factories a bit magical - in go the raw materials, out come the finished products. But Maruti's alchemy seems to work as much on men as on machines. In go the Government's nominees, out come Suzuki's partisans!..." और भी है, मेरे पास चार-पांच और भी हैं, लेकिन कया पढ़ूं, मैं सिर्फ अपने मोहतरम दोस्तों से यहीं कहना चाहता हूं कि मारुति उद्योग लि. जिस अवस्था में है, मैं उससे खुश हूं कि वह डूबने से बचा लिया गया है, यह उद्योग चलेगा। अभी किसी ने यह कहा कि किस स्टेज पर यह तय हुआ था कि सुजुकी वाले सौ फीसदी शेयर खरीदने को तैयार हैं। मैंने पहले भी प्रैस में बयानात दिए हैं और यहां भी कहना चाहता हूं कि हिन्दुस्तान का और हिन्दुस्तान की सरकार का मारुति उद्योग का ५० फीसदी शेयर का जो हिस्सा है, उसे बेचने का कोई इरादा नहीं है।
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY :Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered any point raised by the Members in this debate.
SHRI SIKANDER BAKHT: All right. I will do that.
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY:Sir, does he agree for an inquiry by a Joint Parliamentary Committee? (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: He has not yet completed his reply.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI K. BAPIRAJU (NARSAPUR): Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are all interested to hear the hon. Minister. Let him not lose his temper. He is an elderly person. We want to hear him fully. Let him not be provoked by Shri Jaipal Reddy. He should leave that point and forget it. श्री सिकंदर बख्त: मैं अर्ज करता हूं कि जयपाल रेड्डी साहब की तमाम बातों का मैंने जवाब दिया है। जयपाल रेड्डी जी की स्कैंडल वाली बात का भी जवाब मैंने दिया है। उन्होंने खट्टर साहब का जिक़ किया था, मैंने उसका भी जवाब दिया है। आर.सी. भार्गव हमारा मुकर्रर किया हुआ था, यह मारुति उद्योग के एग्रीमेंट करने से पहले की बात है, उसका जवाब मैं दे चुका हूं। मुझे अफसोस यह है कि जो कुछ इन्होंने खट्टर के बारे में सबस्टेंशिएट किए बगैर कहा। बसुदेव आचार्य साहब ने भी कहा था कि अंडर हैंड डील है, उसका मैंने जिक़ किया है। रुपए-मनी वगैरह का तो मैं कया करूं? करूणाकरन साहब की बात का भी मैंने जवाब दिया है। सेल ऑफ शेयर्स का भी मैंने जिक़ किया है। मैंने इंटरनेशनल कोर्ट का भी जिक़ किया है। मैनेजिंग डायरेकटर का जो इसमें जिक़ है वह with the concurrence of both the parties होगाat every moment यह भी मैं आपको बता दूं, यह आपकी बात कहीं रह गई थी। एनटायर कंट्री खड़ी हो जाएगी, उसका मैंने जिक़ कर दिया कि एनटायर कंट्री में जो पढ़े-लिखे लोग अखबार निकालते हैं, जो मीडिया वाले हैं वे शामिल हैं या नहीं, उसका मैंने जिक़ किया।
PM's Office has taken the decision राघवन साहब ने जो कहा उसका मैंने जिक़ किया कि नहीं, फैसला मैंने किया। बालू साहब ने प्रेशराइज़ कहा तो मैंने उसका जिक़ किया। स्वदेशी का इससे कया ताल्लुक है, एक हैरतअंगेज सवाल है। सुजुकी हमारे आने से पहले एगजिस्ट करती थी, उस एक कम्पनी में सुजुकी के भी शेयर थे और हिन्दुस्तान के भी शेयर्स थे। स्वदेशी का मैंने जिक़ किया, मैं यह भी अर्ज कर देता हूं। कुरियन साहब ने अग्लीहेस्ट का जिक़ किया था। उसके लिए मैं अर्ज कर दिया कि अग्लीहेस्ट इसलिए थी कि मुझे जो तारीख इंटरनेशनल कोर्ट में मुकर्रर थी, उससे पहले फैसला करना था, इसलिए मैंने किया है। मेरा ख्याल है मैंने सब की बातों का जवाब दे दिया है।
... (व्यवधान)मैं उनके चार्ज को ऑफ दी कफ रिजेकट करता हूं।
I do not even care to react to that sort of an ugly, absurd and virulent talk ... (Interruptions) ये जो गन्दगी का चार्ज लगाते हैं, ये वे लोग लगाते हैं जिनकी तमाम सियासी परवरिश भ्रष्टाचार की गोद में हुई है। मैं उनके चार्ज को ऑफ द कफ रिजेकट करता हूं।
... (व्यवधान)
SHRI K. KARUNAKARAN :Sir, we charge the Government... (Interruptions). We have to compel the Government to entrust the enquiry to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. If they do not do it, our charges will stand ... (Interruptions)
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY :Sir, we are totally dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister. He has, as usual, indulged in lamentations and protestations. We have no other option but to stage a walk out against this totally unsatisfactory reply.
18.33 hrs At this stage, Shri S. Jaipal Reddy and some other hon. Members left the House. श्री सिकन्दर बख्त : स्पीकर साहब, जयपाल रेड्डी साहब के वाक आउट के बाद ही मुझे यकीन आएगा कि जो बात मैं कह रहा था वही ठीक है और अगर यह वाक आउट न करते तो मुझे ख्याल होता कि कहीं मैंने कोई गलत बात तो नहीं कह दी।
... (व्यवधान) श्री रघुवंश प्रसाद सिंह :हम मंत्री जी के उत्तर से संतुष्ट नहीं है इसलिए हम वाकआउट करते हैं।
18.34 hrs.. एक सदस्य होने की स्िथति में "तथा कुछ अन्य माननीय सदस्यों" मिटाएं।
(Shri Raghuvansh Prasad Singh and some other hon`ble Members then left the House.) श्री मोहन सिंह (देवरिया): हम मंत्री जी के जवाब से संतुष्ट नहीं हैं इसलिए हम भी वाकआउट करते हैं। १८.३४ म.प.
एक सदस्य होने की स्िथति में "तथा कुछ अन्य माननीय सदस्यों" मिटाएं। ( त्पश्चात श्री मोहन सिंह तथा कुछ अन्य माननीय सदस्यों ने सदन से बहिर्गमन किया।)"> SHRI K. KARUNAKARAN :Sir, since the Government did not agree to an enquiry by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, we protest against the attitude of the Government and we are walking out... (Interruptions)
PROF. P.J. KURIEN :Sir, the Government should agree for an enquiry. But since they are not agreeing for an enquiry we are walking out ... (Interruptions)
18.34 hrs. At this stage, Prof. P.J. Kurien and some other hon. Members left the House.
--------
18.34 1/2 hrs. BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fourth Report PROF. P.J. KURIEN (MAVELIKARA): Sir, I beg to present the Fourth Report of the Business Advisory Committee.
18.35 hrs The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Wednesday, July 22, 1998/Asadha 31, 1920 (Saka)
-------