Press Briefing Monday, 5th April 2010

Shri Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.


Shri Abhishek Singhvi said that Chief Minister Moortidevi Mayawati of Uttar Pradesh has, as a first reaction, brushed aside her and her State’s responsibility to provide funds for operationalising the fundamental right to education. Please consider these facts before I comment on this outrageous reaction from her. India needs Rs. 1.71 crores as a whole for RTE for 5 years. The central government is committed to providing 55% out of that huge sum of money requiring the States only to provide 45%. In the 4-14 target age group of children, the number of children approximately is 22-23 crores in India. Out of this, under a crore - say 92-95 lakhs to be precise – are not in schools. This is on an all India basis. Of this 92-95 lakhs is not in schools in this target age group, almost 1/3rd i.e. 30 lakhs are in UP alone. That is very important for you and for Ms Mayawati to remember.

Shri Singhvi further said that 26% of all children of UP do not go to school in that target group. For implementing the whole, Uttar Pradesh needs 18,000 crores per year and 10,000 crores of those 18,000 crores is already promised by the central Government. Uttar Pradesh has to make an effort only for 8,000 crores. There is nevertheless a threshold refusal by this Government and by this Chief Minister. Meanwhile UP literacy rate is 57% against an all India average of 65%. Meanwhile the maternal mortality rate in UP is 440 out of 10,000 mothers as against an all India figure of 254. Meanwhile the infant mortality rate in UP is 67 per thousand children against an all India average of 53. Regrettably Ms Moortidevi Mayawati appears to have money for everything else except children’s education. She has budgeted 4,436 crores - almost 4,500 crores - in one year ‘s budget of 2009-2010 for her favourite memorials, sthals and parks. She has, therefore, budgeted 3% of this big state’s entire budget on memorials, shtals and parks. 3% which she has so allocated is more than what she has allocated for agriculture in UP. In addition to this Rs. 4,500 crores, she has proposed a further Rs. 67 crores for security of special forces’ security for these monuments. This is an issue of attitude. It reflects the thinking of Ms Moortidevi Mayawati and her BSP Government. That thinking is non developmental, it is person oriented, it is anti-people and it is anti-children paradigm of governance. It is a negative mind-set whose priorities are what. It is a political mind-set which injects politics and that too cheap politics even into the welfare of UP’s children, our children, India’s future and future of this country. Ms. Mayawati’s concern is with the welfare and security of inanimate statues and not the vibrancy of animate children. Perhaps Ms Mayawati is fearful that the accountability which comes out of literacy, the accountability in power and empowerment which comes out of knowledge. We demand from her an explanation for all that she is doing for inanimate statues. Perhaps it suits her and her Government to have Uttar Pradesh of tomorrow which is illiterate and disempowered. Perhaps her plans of self-projection are more easily implemented by keeping Uttar Pradesh that way but that is not the dream for India.

To a question whether there is any problem between the Congress President and the Government on the Food Security Bill, Shri Singhvi said that you are absolutely wrong. I deny any such suggestion. The Congress-led UPA Government has proposed another revolutionary society-changing and mind-changing legislation. When such a frontier initiative is taken, which is pioneering in thought, concept and scope, it is but natural that in-puts from all sections of society, which are genuinely constructive, should be awaited and should be welcome. The object of that exercise is not, as you say, a problem or divisive politics. The object of that exercise is to achieve the best largest, most virtuous coverage of a revolutionary new initiative. In that co-operative exercise, we would all join together and try to push the best blue print. You will see that just like the doubting thomasses of NREGA and doubting thomasses of so many earlier initiatives of this Government, have now been conclusively silenced. Exactly the same is going to happen in the near future with the Food Security Bill.

Shri Singhvi further said that he is not going into details. The idea is what matters. The concept is what matters. The rest are matters of details which have to be married into the larger context of resources but it is a basic idea and every effort you are seeing now is an effort to strengthen to improve even at draft stage. There is not the slightest difference as far as the UPA and the Government is concerned. We are not only on the same page but we are trying to make that page as comprehensive, as clear and as effective as possible.

To a question over the Women’s Reservation Bill, Shri Singhvi said that here is a Government which has brought this Bill for the first time against all odds and you have seen the Congress Party’s grit, determination and resolve. Obviously in a matter like this, to prevent the slightest misgiving on non-consultation, we are trying to take on board every part of the political spectrum. Obviously the attempt is to have the widest possible consultations but that does not mean in the slightest weakening of our resolve. That also does not mean backtracking. This is a matter, not a politics for us. It is a matter of commitment, conviction and the matter of the heart and you have seen and you will see in future that it is the Congress Party alone which does what it says, says what it does, means what it says and says what it means. Shri Singhvi further said that it has to go along with the process. There is no question of any smallest question mark on our commitment. Shri Singhvi also added that it is not a question of consensus, it is a question of getting on board each and every facet of public opinion which has said that we are supporting you. We are talking to the people who, at least in the public domain before all of you, profess and proclaim that we are supporting. Now we have to test out, that is all. We are talking to them because ultimately we want a constructive solution by taking them all together. That is all we are doing. Shri Singhvi said that opponents may be there but therefore, proponents have to co-ordinate. The proponents have to talk and have to collaborate and to cooperate. When the proponents do not collaborate and co-operate, you will raise the allegation of poor floor management and lack of co-operation.

 

Tom Vadakkan
Secretary, AICC