This is how the MISA or any Prevention Detention Act operates. For that you condemned the previous Government and you got all the due or undue credit for it. Now, you yourself try to bring about MISA in a different form. I personally think, this is a breach of faith with the people of India. This is, again, a promise made through their own manifesto. Apart from that, what is the general mood of this House? This House elected in 1977, is a different House. I would like to say that it has gone through the fire of experience and it holds, certainly, some definite views about the liberty of the people. We may have our own different party loyalties. But, certainly we have gone through the fire of experience and we hold certain views today. What about that? This reality is completely ignored. This is one thing that I would like to emphasise.

Making this MISA provision as a part of the ordinary law of the land is something completely contrary to our concept of personal liberty in this country. I know it and I understand it because the governance of the country requires defence of India etc. But sometimes these terms are rather misused. Certainly, when the country’s independence is in danger, Parliament will certainly come to their aid, whatever may be the difficulties. Why then make it a part of the ordinary law of the land?

Then, credit is being taken for having appointed a National Police Commission after so many decades, etc. It betrays a complete ignorance of what was happening in the States. I happened to be the Home Minister of this country and also of my own state when our Prime Minister was the Chief Minister there and, I think, after consulting him, we had appointed a police Commission in our State. I remember, at that time, there were half a dozen Police Commissions functioning in the country. It was thought that “Police” was a matter for the States, and, therefore, many states appointed Police Commisssions. Certainly, they can appoint a National Police Commission. There is nothing wrong in that nobody country had thought of this great thing, of appointing a police Commission and that this Government has tried to do that gives a wrong impression. This is the main point that I am making in this regard. This is what the Address tries to show that something has been done which nobody thought of doing before. As if this is being done for the first time in the history of this country which everybody ought to have done before, but nobody did it, and therefore, they are trying to do it.

Certainly, this Government will have the credit for appointing only the Commissions. If after 10 years somebody writes history and gives some name to the Government, this Government will be called as “Commission Government.” I have read in some newspaper - I have not myself made any research in that - that so far they have appointed about 49 commissions and committees.

It would be very interesting to find out the expenditure involved. Somebody ought to put a question about that and ask the expenditure incurred on the Commissions. A newspaper has made an estimate of the likely expenditure on the Commission because the commissions are such commodities, are such birds - I do not use the word “animals’ because that becomes controversial. (Interruptions). Commission itself is an omission sometimes.