'What Is The Root Cause?'

First of all, I would like to say with respect and humility that nowadaysSamajwadi Party is being bestowed with special benevolence. It is from both thesides. Yesterday, our leader was showered with benevolence and he had toapologise for stating his cause forcefully. If I too am also shown the samebenevolence today, I too may have have to apologise tomorrow. Therefore let meapologise in advance. If anyone is hurt by what I have to say, please forgiveme.

This bill has been passed retrospectively from 1959. It is God's grace that Iwas born in 1956, that is, I was then three years old.

There was a mention of faces and how each office has a face behind it. I tooam such a face who would profit from this bill. But I would like to ask: What isthe real issue in this whole process? What is the root cause? No body is talkingabout that. Who has been a victim of this office of profit? Who was the intendedtarget? Mrs Jaya Bachchan and Amar Singh were the real targets. Mrs JayaBachchan was expelled. [Interruptions] Look, even we can get a chorus to beginsinging from this side. I have already apologised. If the truth is bitter,please say so. If you wish to get the bill passed, please say so. But if youwish just to sing in chorus, then we too would merrily join in.

I wish to say that Mrs Jaya Bachchan was the real target. As for the questionabout me, the Election Commission has stated that Amar Singh's fate and futurehave been decided and finalised, just that the judgement is reserved. Possibly,it would be a negative judgement. Morality has been invoked time and again andour friends from the Left are being charged that they have brought in the billto save their MPs from being expelled. I totally disagree with this. Because theLeft has demonstrated their strength to everyone in West Bengal, Kerala andTripura. If they wish to save their members, were they to be disqualified, theycould easily get them re-elected. They have shown their strength. I am notflattering them. They are not running our government... [Interruptions]. Anyway,let me say what I have to say, and then you can say your bit. They are runningtheir [Congress's]  government, but they do not need any crutches to savetheir members.

Now, one of our members has been embroiled in this office of profit issue.Last time, when I spoke on this, I spoke with a heavy heart. But now that shehas come back after being re-elected, I feel a little lighter. As for me, afterdeciding my fate but reserving the judgement, I have been kept hanging in themiddle. Now our respected colleagues would say that some minor, lower-levelworkers must have done it and that the high command is not aware of it. Acomplaint by an elected member of the All India Congress Committee is at thevery root of this whole controversy. The elected member of the All IndiaCongress Committee, and a Congress nominee, who was pitted against Mrs JayaBachchan, is the one who complained and that is how this whole storm was raised.And when this storm was raised, those who live in glasshouses should know thatthey should not throw stones at the houses of others:

teraa meraa sheeshe kaa ghar, main bhii sochuuN, tuu bhii soch
kyuuN tere haath main paThar,  main bhii sochuuN, tuu bhii soch

And it is astounding to hear all this talk about faces. Let us talk aboutfaces and the theatrics and drama of sacrifice...[Interruptions]  It isastounding to hear all these lectures about morality in the midst of all this:

jab bhii jee chaahe naye chehre lagaa lete haiN log
ek chehre pe naye chechre lagaa lete haiN log

The office of profit is very necessary in Jharkhand, because the governmenthas to be saved, and they have even got the nod from the governor. It's fine inJharkhand, but bad in Delhi? Whatever our friends say here, if one were to namenames, one doesn't know what other charges would be levelled. The Congressspokesperson, one of the country's well-known lawyers, issued a statement thatthe bill passed by the Uttar Pradesh to save its government is being nowintroduced at the Centre. And when the same bill was introduced in Uttar Pradeshassembly, his statement followed that there was no need to bring in such a billto save a Bollywood actress. When the same Bollywood people were in their party,they were considered very worthy, but now that they are with us, they havebecome sinners. And then morality was invoked and the governor was advised notto sign. I wish to thank the law minister, Mr Bhardrwaj, because, perhaps, hedecided to turn benevolent [Interruptions] Yes, he is foresighted. He must havethought that it would come in handy later. And now these spokespersons, who canweave a web with their words - after all, I am uneducated, and I do not get paidto speak, but every word of theirs is invaluable. There are many statements fromhere [Congress] and from there [BJP] as well.

Sir, I want to say that when the bill was passed by the Uttar Pradeshassembly, they said that the governor should not sign it. Then they did notremember the Presidential reference, they did not remember Article 111, thenthey did not remember anything about the clash between the assembly and thegovernor. They swallow the sweet but spit out the bitter, that is, pass inJharkhand but fail in Delhi, fail in Uttar Pradesh but pass in Delhi. At least,you please do not talk of morality [Congress] - and please you don't either [BJP].Parliament is not the High or the Supreme Court where you are fighting a case tohelp a client win or lose. If you wish to talk about morality, if you wish totalk about the right way, if you wish to talk about Gandhi, Lohia and JP, thenplease present their ethos properly. Please do not say that the Left is doingthis to save their government or their MPs, because they have shown what theycan do in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. [Interruptions] What happened inBihar? What happened in Gujarat? Why are you saying this? Where they have apolitical base ...  [Interruptions]

Sir, I request that what we are saying has been defined here has actually notbeen defined here. One fine morning, Supreme Court said where money has not beentaken, where no benefit has accrued, that is not covered in the ambit of'profit' are thse are not offices of profit. This was a seven-judge bunch. Afterthat, the final Supreme Court verdict said that anyone who has taken any officehas 'profited'. Was the first or the last Supreme Court verdict correct? I leaveit for the legal luminaries on either side to tell us. But to the best of ourknowledge, we support Mr Arun Jaitley and we also support what Mr SitaramYechuri has written in his regular column in an established English daily. Hehas written what should circumscribe an office of profit. I think it has notbeen defined even today. I completely agree that the profit I would derive fromthis bill is immoral. I am deeply ashamed and filled with remorse that I too amparty to this immorality. But I would also certainly like to add that I am not aliar; neither I, nor my party, uses double standards. If something is OK inUttar Pradesh, then it is OK in Delhi as well. Unlike my friends on this side,with one opinion when in Jharkhand and another when in Delhi, or those on theother side, with one view in Uttar Pradesh and another in Delhi, I cannot dothis sort of politics.

With a heavy heart, saluting these sacrificers, saluting these renunciators,that they have sacrificed and renunciated a lot to raise this, while condemningthis extremism in politics -- and extremism is not just religious in nature butalso of political vendetta -- sometimes raids, sometimes attacks on 'office ofprofit', sometimes telephone-taps -- this extremism which is present inpolitics, this politics of vendetta -- and opposing the use of these things inthe dirty, cruel and obscene politics, with a very heavy heart, with extremesadness, while supporting this immorality, I support this bill.

Mr Amar Singh spoke in Hindi. This is a hurried, but close literaltranslation.