Prime Minister of India - Dr. Manmohan Singh

PM’s reply to the Rajya Sabha debate on the President's address

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to join all Members of this august House in conveying our sincere thanks to the Honourable President of India for her enlightened Address. For the past two days, we have had a very constructive debate on the issues covered in Rashtrapati ji’s Address. While several Members have expressed satisfaction at the working of the Governments, others have criticized it. This is as it should. Mr. Chairman, Sir, I have listened with great respect yesterday to Mr. Venkaiah Naidu and also to Mr. Yechury. I was not present here all the time but I have taken note of various points which have been expressed in this august House and I will try to respond to the main points which emerged from this debate. Let me say that I listened with great regard and respect to my old friend and colleague, Arjun Kumar Sengupta, and his is a voice of sanity which, I think, I greatly endorse.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, yesterday, while initiating the debate, Shri Venkaiah Naidu asked what are the challenges and how are we going to face those challenges. I think, that question was answered by Shri Yechury very well when he quoted from the last paragraph of the Rashtrapatiji’s Address in which he quoted Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous statement on the midnight of 14th August 1947 and if we identify the challenge, the challenge is, the service of India. What is the meaning of the service of India? It means the service of the millions who suffer; it means ending poverty, ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. That challenge has remained with us. Poverty, ignorance and disease and their eradication is the most important challenge before our country and before our polity. A lot has been done to soften the harsh edges of extreme poverty. But much remains to be done. Therefore, it is our collective responsibility to reflect as to how best we can get rid of this massive burden of crying poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions and millions of people in our country. There are differences about measuring poverty, and I am not going into that. It is the general consensus that during the first three decades of our independence, despite major achievements, the proportion of people below the poverty line declined very little. Since then, there has been a decline though people differ as to the precise number of people who are below the poverty line. I accept that the people below the poverty line are our primary concerns and, therefore, the identification problem is important but it is only the beginning of finding a solution.

 

 

Therefore, the effort must be how we can ensure that the poor are brought into the mainstream of the national scheme of things. The more I reflect on this, the more I am convinced that the only way in which we can find meaningful solutions to the problems of mass poverty is through a rapidly expanding economy. If our economy is not expanding, the problems of redistribution, even if you can manage them, become formidable obstacles to national cohesion, because if the economy is not growing and you want to re-distribute the income or wealth, then, the process becomes a zero-sum game and if the process of re-distribution becomes a zerosum game, it will arouse resistance, some time successful, some time unsuccessful. But in a parliamentary democracy, wedded to peaceful means of resolving social conflicts, I think, this will be a bit tragic. However, if the economy is growing at a rapid rate, you can redistribute also without too much social tensions, because in the process of redistribution what people lose, in an expanding economy, is not an absolute loss, but a relative loss. Therefore, I do submit that for the management of a polity as diverse, as complex, as India’s is, unless and until our economy is growing fast enough, we will not be able to deal with the problems of poverty. This is not to say that growth is an end in itself; growth is only a means to an end. We can help some people, who are poor, through social security measures. But there are limitations, and these limitations are all the more severe if the economy is not growing. But if the economy is growing and we marry it with an employment intensive pattern of development, you lift people above the poverty line much more effectively than through other means of public services important though that means may also be. Therefore, if you want more growth, we have to work for it. Antigrowth rhetoric has no substance; it has no meaning. All that we can say is that growth must be accompanied by a social commitment, to see that this is inclusive. This is a process which will lift the millions and millions who are at the lowest rung of the ladder. Therefore, along with growth, we need strategies for employment generation; we need strategy for social empowerment through education, through health. We need to go for social security measures, for the truly deprived and backward, of the type which we have been trying to attempt in recent years. They need to be implemented much more vigorously, much more effectively. I will be the last one I think to deny that. I would say that India faces enormous challenges. But we are also on the cusp of great opportunities. Ten years ago, if you had asked me whether India would be able to have a savings rate of 35 per cent or an investment rate of 37 per cent, everybody would have laughed it away.

 

But structural changes have come about in this economy. Today, we have savings at 35 per cent of our GDP, and our investment rates are 37 per cent of our GDP. These are the miracle rates of savings and investments which one used to associate hitherto only with the East Asian or South East Asian countries, including China. We are, I think, therefore, on the verge of that opportunity where, with this rate of investment of 35 or 36 or 37 per cent, with a capital output ratio of 4:1, a growth rate of 9-10 per cent is eminently obtainable.

 

 

I submit to this august House that on the challenge of mass poverty, let us work together, convert it into an opportunity for building an India free from the fear of war, want, and exploitation.

 

 

It is in this context that I look at the achievements of the last four or five years. Not that we have solved all the problems, but the fact is that until the beginning of the global economic crisis of September 2008, in the previous three years, the economy had grown at the rate of over nine per cent per annum. It’s a remarkable development. In the face of an acute global crisis which led to negative rate of growth in countries as advanced as the United States, as advanced as countries of the European Union, India still was able to sustain in 2008-09, a growth rate of 6.7 per cent, rising to a growth rate of, at least, 7.2 per cent and hopefully, 7.5 per cent this year, which is an achievement. And, I am confident, if we manage our affairs well and if we deal with the social tensions that bedevil our polity well, we are in the realm of a double-digit growth era. If that comes about, if by the year 2011-12 we return to the growth path of nine per cent per annum and if in addition, we take note of the demographic changes which are taking place, I think, you must recognise that our working labour force as a proportion of the total work force is going to rise sharply in the next two decades. Everywhere that process of demographic change has been associated with a sharp increase in the savings rate. So, I am confident, if we manage this process well, the savings rate in India would rise to 40 per cent or more. And with that, we can look forward to an era of double-digit growth, perhaps the fastest growing economy of the world. That is something which is within reach. If we manage our affairs well, if we ensure that along with the raising of savings and investment rates, we manage our social and economic infrastructure well and if our processes of governance are reformed so as to minimise the scope for corruption, so as to minimise the transaction cost of doing business in our country, I think, great opportunities are now on the horizon. And, whatever be our differences, I think, Jawahar Lal Nehru’s dictum that the service of India means the service of the poor and the millions who suffer, should unite this House so that the Government and the Opposition of all shades of opinion working together can push the growth process in a manner that it will become the servant of social change. That is the approach our Government has adopted for the management of the economic and social policies.

 

 

It will be far too presumptuous on my part to say that there are no pitfalls, that there are no leakages. I do recognise that. It is in that spirit, that I take the criticism that emanates from the Opposition Benches or from the Treasury Benches. I think, that’s a healthy part of the functioning of Parliamentary democracy. I welcome this opportunity given to me to respond to some of the specific issues which have been raised in the course of the debate.

 

 

The first and the foremost issue that concerns the Members on this side as well as on that side is the issue of food inflation. I do recognise, food inflation is a major problem and that every effort should be made to bring it down to lower, normal levels. But, I would like the House to appreciate that until 2007, things were moving broadly in the right direction. Then, in the first half of 2008, there was a sharp upsurge in international commodity prices and whether we like it or not, we are today integrated in the world economy, in a manner, which was not the case some 10 or 20 years ago.

 

 

We are dependent on petroleum products to the extent of 70 per cent of our imports, we are dependent on fertilizer supplies to a very substantial part of our requirement, we are dependent on vegetable oils and oil seeds for a substantial part, we are dependent on pulses the production of which is stagnant at 14, 15 million tons for a decade, and we are dependent in times of shortage of sugar on imports. And when we talk of sugar, I think, any text book on Indian Economics will tell you that there is a 2 to 3 years cycle in the operations of the sugarcane economy of our country. There are two or three years when prices go up. That induces farmers then to switch more the area under sugarcane cultivation that leads to a glut that lost another 2 or 3 years. So, this cycle has prevailed, and if there is a failure of the economic policy, it is with regard to the management of the sugar economy. It is this that when a cycle does exit, we have got been able to find practical, pragmatic means of dealing with this cyclical behaviour without too much pressure on prices. That I do admit is a weakness. But I think that is a weakness which is basically the result of the nature of the cyclical pattern of sugarcane production, I exhibited for the last 50 or 60 years that I know of even before Independence times. Therefore, in the background of steep rise in imported prices, some pressure on domestic prices was inevitable. And then comes the drought, associated with the failure of the south-west monsoons that compounded the problem on the price front. There was a steep fall in the production of kharif rice; there was a steep fall in the production of pulses in the kharif season; there was a steep fall in the production of sugarcane. These are the 3 or 4 commodities which dominate the food recession, and if you did not have this phenomenon of drought, followed by floods in Andhra Pradesh, floods in Karnataka, I think the situation might have been different. But these were circumstances beyond the Government’s control. That food price rise did cause worries, that it brought hardships to the poorer sections of the community, it is undeniable. But I think this was the situation where there was very little option for the Government except to cushion the poor to the extent it could against the rise in prices, and I take some credit for this Government that since 2002, there has been no increase in the prices of Public Distribution supplies to below the poverty line people as well as to that category which is technically characterised as above the poverty line. So, the Public Distribution System in this country may be mismatched, but we distribute annually through the Public Distribution System about 40 million tons of foodgrains, mostly rice and wheat, meant for the poorer sections of our population. The total production of foodgrains in the best of times has been about up to 33 million tons. So, 14 million tons available for Public Distribution to the poorer sections of the society... if the system is well managed, is a powerful source of intervention and the challenge is not, I think, to say that the Public Distribution System should be dismantled, but that the Public Distribution System should be so strengthened that it can really reach out to the poor is the challenge. A large number of bogus cards that exist in all States of the Union, I think, become a thing of the past. That traders who supply foodgrains do not mismanage, this is the challenge before the Centre, before the States.

 

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the State Government to mange the Public Distribution System. But I do submit to you, Sir, that the responsibility of the Central Government to provide about 40 million tonnes of foodgrains at fixed prices, which have not been changed since 2002, is an act which, I think, needs some appreciation even if you are in the Opposition. This is the background of the inflationary rise. But I do agree that inflation is a concern which cannot be wished away.

 

 

The question is: how do you deal with the inflation? If inflation was the only concern, I think, I could have instructed the Reserve Bank to control the money supply expansion in a manner that inflationary expectations would have been do used. That was an option. But if we had done that, and the way the world was facing a global recession, the problem of unemployment, a large scale unemployment, in India, would have become a mass problem. In fact, as I said, the whole world was experiencing a recession, but our country still managed to stay afloat though with reduced growth rates. The figures that have been given of employment in our country, the behaviour of employment, there are no compilation of statistics of employment generation of all sectors. The Economic Survey of this year has used its data, a sample survey data, to take a look at the employment situation and it emerges that whatever may have happened in the world outside, the unemployment situation in India was not allowed to be aggravated as a result of the measures that we had adopted as fiscal stimuli. If we had used the harsher monetary policy, that would have hurt more people than it has done today. It would have caused more worry to the poor, to the people, to those who would have become unemployed. So, if you have a choice to make inflation or unemployment, I submit that if you can curb the effects of inflation through the Public Distribution System, the employment aspect can best be dealt with in the manner in which our Government dealt with it through a fiscal stimulus. Any other course, tightening of our fiscal and monetary policies would have hurt the poor a lot more. And this is the explanation that I have to offer to this House when you review the inflation, the factors behind it, and the consequences of it. But having said that, I do agree that in the months to come, we should, I think, look at more effective means to curb the inflation. Fortunately, the rabi crop prospects are quite good; prices of some commodities have also started declining. My own feeling is that the worst is over. That is what I said to the Conference of Chief Ministers. I stand, I think, by that statement.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion on the export of sugar. I think, Shri Venkaiah Naidu has talked of a scam. Now, I think, the Opposition smells a scam everywhere. I can’t help it. But the plain facts are as I will describe in a moment.

 

 

The first thing I do wish to point out is that when you are in an international trading environment, you have to honour the international commitments. If you don’t honour your commitments, I think, next time you may not be able to retain that market. This was the case. The amount of sugar that India has exported has to be viewed in relation to imports, and in relation to imports the exports that we made to honour the contractual commitments are so small that it is surprising that so much is being made of these exports. In November, 2009, India exported sugar worth Rs. 7.94 crores, whereas it imported sugar worth Rs. 611.40 crores. In December, 2009, the exports of sugar were worth Rs. 12.34 crores, whereas the imports were worth Rs. 216.90 crores. Therefore, I think, the conclusion to which I am led is that even if you were able to prevent these small exports, they would have made very little difference to the price situation. In any case, the imports far exceeded the exports.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, an economy, with all its potential, does not grow in isolation. I would say that the economy does not grow in a vacuum. Rightly, several Members have made a reference to the internal security situation in our country. There is no doubt that terrorism and naxalism are causes of serious concern. Our country has to grapple with these menaces and can grapple with it with all its force and with all its might. That is the assurance that I wish to give to this House and this is an area where there will be zero tolerance for terrorism or for naxalism or for such other things. I would also say that in dealing with naxalism we are dealing with our own people. These are some of the misguided people. If they abjure the path of violence, if they give up this approach to solving the problems, we are willing to talk to anyone who has any concrete, constructive solution to deal with the problems of the Tribal belt, which, I do agree, has not received the attention thus far of development planners to the extent that it should have.

 

 

I was saying that we are taking firm action to curb naxalite violence. It is unfortunate that the naxalites are targeting the innocent people and destroying roads, power-lines and other essential infrastructure. In some places we have received reports of the use of children. A high-level meeting was recently held with all the Chief Ministers where we reviewed the entire situation. We have drawn up an integrated action plan to tackle the naxalite problem in consultation with the States. The security forces have achieved several notable successes of late. While, as I said, we are determined to take firm action, we are ready to talk to any group that abjures violence unconditionally and agrees to abide by the due constitutional process.

 

 

Sir, as regards terrorism, the National Investigation Agency has commenced its work. Four Regional Hubs of National Security Guards have been set up. We are in the process of setting up a National Counter Terrorism Centre. A National Committee on Coastal Security has been set up which has adopted an integrated approach to coastal security and has taken major initiatives and decisions for registration of vessels, issue of identity cards to fishermen, installation of transponders on boats and setting up of four Joint Operation Centres. Coastal Police Stations and interceptor boats have become operational under the coastal security scheme. To supplement the efforts of the State Governments in modernising their police forces, we have provided Rs. 1,250 crores during the current year, of which Rs. 955.53 crores have been released to States up to 28th January this year. This has helped States in augmenting the resources available to police forces in terms of vehicles, weaponry, communication, training, forensic facilities, intelligence capabilities, security equipment and buildings. The Bureau of Police Research and Development is engaged in an in-depth assessment study of the scheme so that the scheme could be improved upon.

 

Yesterday, Shri Naidu and also some other Members referred to the agricultural situation in our country and the neglect of agriculture. It is certainly true that agricultural output in the current year, according to the latest estimates of the CSO, will show a decline of 0.2 per cent. But looking at the background of the developments in the current year, the effect of a bad monsoon followed by drought, I think, this is a measure of the success of Indian agriculture that even a severe drought, the worst since 1972, has brought about a decline of only 0.2 per cent in agricultural output during the current fiscal year.

 

 

A drought, after all, is beyond anybody’s control. A severe drought does result in negative growth in agriculture and it is no surprise that agriculture is expected to grow at -0.2 per cent in 2009-10. We should not, however, forget that in 2002-03, following the drought of 2002, agricultural growth went down by a good 7 per cent; food production went down from 202 million tonnes in 1998-99 to 174 million tonnes in 2002-03. I would also like to humbly remind the Members that the agricultural sector has been growing at an average rate of 4 per cent during the period 2005 to 2008, compared to the growth rate of around 2 per cent from 1997 to 2002.

 

 

Our pro-farmer policies have borne fruits. For the first time in the recent past — the figures are there in the Economic Survey — we have reversed the longterm trend of decline in investment in agriculture and stepped up investment in agriculture through the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme, the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the National Food Security Mission, the National Horticultural Mission and other such schemes. We should also not forget the investment in water conservation structures that is being made through millions of works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Food production had increased from 174 million tonnes in 2002-03 to 233 million tonnes in 2008-09, which represents a growth rate of around six per cent per year. But I am conscious that a lot more needs to be done to improve agricultural productivity, and we are committed to continuing our efforts to increase both public and private investment in agriculture and to diversify agriculture so that higher farm incomes provide stability to the lives of millions of our farmers. The decision to pay remunerative prices by way of increased Minimum Support Prices is a part of our effort to incentives growth of agricultural production and productivity. I should also say that one of the weaknesses of the agricultural system in our country is the decline in the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in a large number of States. I think that is weakness which has to be plugged. The State Governments have to be mobilised to go back to the old system of extension under which India began the Green Revolution. In ushering in of the Green Revolution, the extension services in our States played a very important role. But, in many States, I think, the extension machinery has become very lethargic. Unless it is activated I think, we will be talking in the air when we are talking of increasing agricultural productivity or agricultural production.

 

I think it was Shri Naidu who raised the issue of rights of tribals over forests. We are making all possible efforts together with the State Governments to ensure early disposal of claims and distribution of titles under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act. I have also requested the Chief Ministers of concerned States, on three occasions, to take all possible measures necessary to accelerate the process of implementation of the Act and ensure expeditious distribution of title deeds to all eligible claimants. It was reiterated through the Conference of Chief Ministers and State Ministers, held in November, 2009, to review implementation of the Act. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs is closely monitoring the progress in this regard.

 

 

I think it was Shri Ram Gopal Yadav who expressed concern over the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Let me say that this is a scheme which has the potential to change the phase of rural India. To increase its impact, we have initiated measures to bring in greater transparency and accountability.

 

 

An ombudsman scheme for setting up an independent Grievance Redressal Mechanism at the district level has been formulated, and States are in the process of setting up District Ombudsman. Social audits by Gram Sabhas have also been taken up. Details of job cards, master roll and works undertaken have also been placed in the public domain. The scheme for an independent monitoring by eminent citizens has been formulated. Efforts will continue to be made to improve the implementation of this scheme.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, Shri Naidu brought out the issue of the State of Telangana and I would, therefore, like to state the position as I see it. The issue of statehood to Telangana has been raised by some hon. Members. Please allow me to say that it was only after considering the minutes of the meeting of the floor leaders of political parties in the State Legislature called by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh that the Central Government announced its decision to initiate the process of forming the State of Telangana. It was also announced that an appropriate resolution would be moved in the State Assembly. However, in view of the subsequent developments in Andhra Pradesh, we are of the view that the matter requires wide-ranging consultation with the aim of forging a consensus amongst all concerned. A committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Justice B.M. Srikrishna to take things forward. The committee is expected to consult all sections of the people, especially the political parties, on the aforesaid matter and elicit their views to seek from the political parties and other organisations a range of solutions that would resolve the present difficult situation and promote the welfare of all sections of the people to identify optimal solution for this purpose and to recommend a plan of action and a roadmap. It is also expected to consult other organisations such as industry, trade unions, farmers organisations, women’s organisations and students organisations on the aforesaid matter and elicit their views with specific reference to the all round development of the different regions of the State and give a report by December 31, 2010. Mr. Chairman, Sir, I think it was Mr. Naidu who referred to the creation of the three States when his Party was in power at the Centre. That is correct. But those were the cases where there was no difference of opinion between all the stakeholders. It was easy to take that decision. But, in the present situation, I think things have worked out differently and I, therefore, appeal to the Members to bear this in mind.

 

 

Shri Naidu referred to the issue of black money. I would like to inform the House of the steps we have taken on this matter. Twenty countries and jurisdictions have been prioritised for entering into agreements regarding exchange of information and assistance in the collection of taxes. Negotiations have been completed with the Bahamas and Bermuda and steps are being taken for signing of agreements. We have also approached Switzerland for renegotiation of our tax treaty, so that we can have access to bank information. Negotiations were held in November, 2009 and the matter is being pursued for finalising a new protocol through which we will be able to obtain information in specific cases. India is an active participant in global fora for improving transparency and exchange of information on tax matters.

 

 

Mr. Chairman Sir, Shri Yechury raised the issue of one rank-one pension to the ex-servicemen. The factual position in this regard is that we had constituted a committee under the Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue of one rank-one pension and other related matters. The Committee did not recommend one rank-one pension but whatever recommendations the Committee made to substantially enhance the pensionary benefits of personnel below officer rank and of commissioned officers were accepted by the Government, and this is what I had stated in my Independence Day speech. The recommendations which have been accepted cover what the Finance Minister had promised in his Budget Speech of 2009. Of the seven recommendations that the Committee made, five have been implemented. The two recommendations which have not been implemented will be implemented very soon.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, with regard to the Women’s Reservation Bill, we introduced the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha in May, 2008. We have already considered the Report of the Standing Committee of Parliament on this Bill. It will be our endeavour to bring the Bill before Parliament in this very Session. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will support the Bill as it would be the strongest affirmation of our commitment to the empowerment of our women.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I should say a few words about Foreign Policy. The Government’s Foreign Policy has been based on national consensus and full adherence to the principles and objectives laid down by the founding fathers of our Republic. The Foreign Policy that we pursued in the first term of our Government, around which we have built upon in the second term, has yielded solid results. India’s standing in the comity of nations has never been higher!

 

 

In the troubled world that we live in, there is respect for India’s role as a force of moderation, reason and stability. The resilience of our democracy, our commitment to pluralism and secularism and the strength of our economy have greatly enhanced our standing in the world.

 

 

Sir, several Members have voiced their concerns over the situation in Pakistan and the terrorism that is emanating from there against India. The Government fully shares these concerns. We are taking all necessary steps to strengthen our internal security and defence capability. The Government has kept Parliament fully informed at every stage of our policy towards Pakistan. I had made a detailed statement on our approach towards Pakistan in this august House on 29th July, 2009. The External Affairs Minister briefed the House on the last round of Foreign Secretary level talks in February. Our policy towards Pakistan is consistent, cautious and realistic. I have never believed that the channels of communication with Pakistan should break down. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Americans and the Soviets used to speak to each other. The chances of mis-calculation can only increase in an environment of ‘no contact.’ I, therefore, personally conveyed our concerns to President Zardari when I met him in Russia and later to Prime Minister Gilani at the NAM Summit last year. I had made an offer of talks on humanitarian and other issues in October last year during my visit to Anantnag. The decision to resume talks at the Foreign Secretary level is not a sudden decision but a calculated one, based on weighing all the costs and benefits. The fact of the matter is that the rest of the international community, despite Pakistan’s role in terrorism, is talking to Pakistan. So, our not talking to them is not going to isolate them. We have made our points strongly, but we cannot wish away the problem by not talking to them. Dialogue is the only way forward for civilized countries to resolve their problem. But, it is equally true that for any meaningful dialogue to proceed the terror machine has to be controlled by Pakistan even if non-State actors are at work. I have had many discussions in this regard. Pakistan must fulfil its assurances that it will not permit any territory under its control to be used to support terrorism in any manner directed against India. I have said so in Parliament a number of times and that remains our consistent position.

 

 

Some hon. Members — I think, it was Mr. Yadav — have referred to my discussions in Saudi Arabia on Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is also affected by terrorism and this was one of the subjects that came up in our discussions.

 

I discussed India-Pakistan ties in this context. I mentioned to the Saudi leadership as I had to other world leaders as well that all problems between India and Pakistan can be resolved through meaningful, bilateral dialogue if only Pakistan were to take a reasonable attitude in dealing with those terrorist elements who target our country. I wish to reaffirm that no offer was made seeking mediation. We do not need any mediation. We are talking directly to Pakistan.

 

 

Some Members have said, I think, Mr. Naidu hinted, that we acted under U.S. pressure. I think, we do a disservice to any Government and Prime Minister of this proud country if we say that such fundamental matters of national security and foreign policy were decided based on anything but our supreme national interest. I have had by now many discussions with President Obama since he took office. I categorically state that not once has he sought to pressurize India into taking one position or the other. On the contrary, he has always expressed understanding of the positions we have taken from time to time. I would urge the Opposition not to spread disinformation on sensitive aspect of our foreign policy.

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, let me say that we do not wish to see the involvement of foreign powers in the affairs of South Asia. Whatever our problems, we must learn to talk to each other and resolve our problems in a peaceful manner using our own creative genius.

 

 

In Afghanistan, our assistance has received widespread support among the people of Afghanistan. The entire nation was outraged by the most recent brutal attack in Kabul on February 26, which led to the loss of seven innocent Indian lives. These Indian nationals were in Afghanistan on a mission of peace, of goodwill and friendship helping to construct the peaceful and democratic Afghanistan that our Afghan friends desire. We condemn this dastardly act. I wish to assure this House that such attacks will not bend the will of the people of India.

 

 

Sir, Mr. Naidu also brought in the issue of India China relationship and I should like to state that China is our neighbour with whom we have a comprehensive and multi-sectoral relationship. We wish to build upon the achievements so far to create a partnership that is mutually beneficial. We are convinced that good relations with China are in the interest of both countries and will contribute to peace, security and stability not only of the Asia Pacific region, but also of the world. We are both committed at the highest level to maintain peace and tranquility on the border, pending the resolution of the border question. This is a complex matter which will take time to resolve. I had an excellent interaction with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Copenhagen, and our cooperation in the area of climate change is a shining example of how our two countries can work together on issues of global importance and those which impinge on the future of our two peoples.

 

 

Some Members raised the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka. The conclusion of military operations against the LTTE has opened opportunities for finding a lasting political settlement acceptable to all communities, particularly the Tamil community, with a united Sri Lanka. We have and we will continue to contribute to the humanitarian and rehabilitation efforts of the Sri Lankan Government and to the long-term reconstruction of areas that have been affected by the military conflict. Our assistance package of Rs. 500 crores for immediate relief, resettlement and reconstruction is under implementation.

 

 

Mr. Chairman, Sir, our country is passing through a difficult phase. Security and stability are the need of the hour. Political parties can differ on various issues but I do believe it is important for us to face challenges in a united manner. I seek the cooperation and support of all sections of this august House. Let us not allow narrow partisan considerations to come in the way of effective governance of this great country. The people of India expect both the Treasury and Opposition Benches to engage constructively and work together for the safety, security and prosperity of our citizens.

 

I thank you, Sir.