I would like to make one more point here. Fortunately, and incidentally, the debate on the President’s Address has extended so far this year that while participating in the debate, one has the advantage of having had a look at Government’s Economic Review and also the Budget of the year, which normally never happens. When I am participating in the debate now, I have got fortunately, as every one else, the documents of the President’s Address, the Economic Review, the Finance Minister’s Budget speech and his budget proposals. So, one can see whether they satisfy the test of a peep into the future and give some projections about the future.
If we try to judge the president’s Address from these criteria, I must say that it is a great disappointment. I do not want to use more flowery language to condemn it, but it is a very deeply disappointing speech. About its language etc. I share what Mr. Mavalanakar has said. It is not only written in uninspiring language but unfortunately it is not written even in a readable language. It is very unfortunate. I know the process by which the President’s Address is formulated., having been in the Government for many years.
Possibly some draft paragraphs from different Ministries have been put together to make this speech. Therefore, it does not contain any analysis of the past, it does not give any projections for the future. This unfortunately seems to be the position though somebody might have co-ordinated these paragraphs. This is what the speech looks like.
It is interesting to try to find out what they are trying to say, and whether it can stand the test of scrutiny or analysis on any particular ground. Naturally, the speech contains a review of certain incidents. This reference to Lakshadweep and Andhra Pradesh, the devastating cyclone’s effect etc. is all right, and I think it was very necessary that such an important incident should be mentioned, and it starts with that. But then, the following paragraphs look like just a review paragraph from the Ministry of Law and Justice as to what Act they want to introduce. There also, they are not fair. For, example, paragraphy 3 contains two parts, and this is about constitutional amendments. The first part mentions what constitutional amendments have been passed, and the other part is about the bill that is under preparation. I think they ought to have been more generous and fair to the Opposition in this matter. This is the tendency I see in this Janata Government and the Janata party itself, that they would like to take for themselves, credit for everything that is happening as something new. As if nobody has done anything so far in India and it is for the first time, after thousand of years of history, that they are writing the a-b-c- of the history of India. This is the impression that they are trying to give.
Here in the first part they say :