कथन

A black flag is a sign of protest, a sign to say we will stand up and fight and we shall not give up. … (Interruptions) And it is the colour that Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar chose for his Party flag. … (Interruptions) It is the same blue colour which Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar chose which you dismissed. He is the man who taught us that we should educate, agitate and organise. The man who wrote the Constitution chose this colour. You are trying to dilute and we here are trying to protect. … (Interruptions) Yesterday, the Prime Minister, when he saw us in black, said that he was reminded of a black dot or a tika. It is there to drive away evil forces or evil eye or whatever. Sir, I am surprised that people here who are there to protect Hindutva were not reminded of Kali, the Goddess, the dark Goddess who wears black, the feminine power, the woman, the Goddess who is supposed to drive away ego, arrogance and ignorance. And the same black colour we have chosen to protest is the colour of Periyar, our intellectual leader. He taught us self-respect. He taught us never to bow. He taught us fight till the end and we will fight till the end. We oppose these Bills, in the name of our leaders Arignar Anna and Kalaignar Karunanidhi who said, “States are not a unit of a unitary State but equal partners of a federation”, in the name of our Chief Minister, Muthuvel 17.04.2026 71 Karunanidhi Stalin, who even in an article today has said, “This Bill should be withdrawn. A fresh Bill should be introduced and placed in the public domain for at least three months for wider consultation.” He says, "The moment calls for reflection, not expediency; deliberation, not haste. If the Constitution is to endure as a charter of trust, its amendment must be guided by principle anchored in fairness, restraint, and fidelity to the Republic's enduring integrity" "Tamil Nadu will fight for it's right and Tamil Nadu will win." * Thank you Vanakkam. माननीय अÅय± : डॉ. शिश थłर जी । … (Óयवधान) माननीय अÅय± : आप बधाई बाहर दीिजएगा । … (Óयवधान) माननीय अÅय± : आप सदन म¤ िडÖटब¦स मत कìिजए । … (Óयवधान) DR. SHASHI THAROOR (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I must say that we all strongly endorse the very impressive presentation by the former speaker because this is a matter that touches the very soul of our democracy: the representation of half of our population in the hallowed halls of this Parliament. And for decades, the Women's Reservation Bill has been the long promised, frequently discussed, perpetually delayed like "Waiting for Godot of our political system”. Today, we stand at a threshold where there is remarkably a near- ….. English translation of this part of speech was originally delivered in Tamil. 17.04.2026 72 unanimous political consensus in favour of women’s reservation. Every major Party in this House recognises that the time for tokenism is over and the era of equal partnership must begin. Yet, I find myself deeply perturbed by the legislative exercise before us. The Prime Minister says the Government has brought “Naari Shakti” a gift of justice, but he has wrapped it in the barbed wire, tethering the implementation of women's reservation to the expansion of Parliament, to numbers from the 2011 Census and an exercise of delimitation. Why, Mr. Speaker, must we entangle a moral imperative with a demographic minefield? Women's reservation is ready for harvest. खेत कì फसल काटने के िलए तैयार ह§ दोÖतŌ । It can, and should, be implemented immediately based on our existing parliamentary strength. To link it to delimitation is to hold the aspirations of Indian women hostage to one of the most contentious and complex administrative exercises in our nation's history. Delimitation is not a mere bureaucratic rearranging of maps; it is a profound shift in political power that is intended. Linking women's reservation to it effectively holds the aspirations of Indian women hostage to one of the most contentious political exercises in our history. Such an exercise carries risks that could strain the very fabric of our federalism, as you heard from the previous speaker. Any delimitation exercise is fraught with complications that could tear at the very fabric of our federalism. We must be candid about what is at stake when Constituencies are redrawn based on current population figures or even the 2011 Census. Let us face it. Delimitation requires a serious discussion. We face a profound demographic divergence. There are at least 17.04.2026 73 three major fault-lines in our country. First one is the balance between small States and big States. Second one is the balance between States, particularly in the South like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which have diligently implemented national goals of population control and invested in inclusive human development, and those States, mainly in the North, which have not. Yet in future delimitations, States that have failed to curb population growth would be rewarded with greater political weight. We must ask if this is the message we wish to send that governance excellence leads to political irrelevance. Third one is the balance between the States that are the engines of our economy, contributing more to the national exchequer than they receive, and those that are net recipients of Central funds. A delimitation based purely on population would further marginalise the voices of those States that provide the lion's share of the resources that keep our Union afloat. We risk creating a tyranny of the demographic majority, where a handful of large, poor States could theoretically determine the fate of the entire country, leaving smaller States and those with distinct linguistic and cultural identities and economic contributions feeling like bystanders in their own country. Conversely, States with high population growth but lower economic productivity could gain outsized political power without corresponding fiscal responsibility. What happens to cooperative federalism? You have proposed delimitation with such haste, the same haste that you showed on demonisation. Unfortunately, we all know what damage that did to the country. Delimitation will turn out to be political demonisation. Do not do it, Sir. 17.04.2026 74 Now, I would like to address the so-called 50 per cent formula that was presented yesterday by the Home Minister regarding the delimitation exercise. The assurance – given that no State will lose its current number of seats and that the total strength of the House will be increased by 50 per cent – remains, at best, a precarious political promise rather than a legislative certainty. This is because such a pledge is fundamentally at odds with the existing legal framework, which grants wide discretion to the Delimitation Commission appointed by the Government. Its decisions are final and cannot be challenged in a court of law. Since this formula has not been codified as a binding constitutional or statutory safeguard, it can be easily altered or even discarded by a simple parliamentary majority. Therefore, it offers no durable guarantee beyond the immediate term. Furthermore, expanding the Lok Sabha to an 850-Member House would result in a legislature that is by far the largest in any democracy in the world. Such a body risks becoming unwieldy and difficult to manage. This concern becomes even more pressing in the present context, where the duration of parliamentary sittings has been steadily declining. While the first and second Lok Sabhas met for an average of around 125 days annually, the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas saw this figure fall to below 60 days. In such a constrained schedule, how would meaningful participation be ensured? An 850-Member chamber would require at least a doubling of the current time allocated for Question Hour, Zero Hour, etc. माननीय अÅय± : अगर मेरे कायªकाल म¤ होगा, तो म§ सबको मौका दे दूंगा । 17.04.2026 75 … (Óयवधान) माननीय अÅय± : कल भी इसी मिहला संशोधन िबल पर रात को 1 बजकर 25 िमनट तक सभी मिहला सदÖयŌ को बोलने का मौका िदया गया । … (Óयवधान) डॉ. शिश थłर : सर, मुझे आपके बारे म¤ भी िचंता है । A majority of Members of Parliament would have little or no opportunity to speak. You will have to double the time allotted to Question Hour and Zero Hour failing which a majority of Members of Parliament would be effectively silenced. How will you manage it with 850 Members? With the present strength of 543 Members, many of our Members sometimes do not get chance to ask questions… (Interruptions) माननीय अÅय± : शिश थłर जी, म§ आपको बोलने से रोकना नहé चाहता हóँ, लेिकन इस सदन म¤ कोई भी माननीय सदÖय यह नहé बोल सकता है िक म§ िकसी को बोलने का मौका नहé देता हóँ, चाहे शूÆय काल हो, चाहे िवधेयक हो । जो सदÖय िजतनी देर बोलना चाहता है, उसे बोलने िदया जाता है । म§ रात को भी अंितम łप से लाÖट तक उपिÖथत रहता हóँ िक अगर कोई माननीय सदÖय बोलने के िलए बाकì रह गया है, तो म§ उसे भी बोलने देता हóँ । डॉ. शिश थłर : जब 850 सदÖय हो जाएंगे, तो आपका ³या हाल होगा, मुझे पता नहé? SHRI A. RAJA (NILGIRIS): But time constraint will be there. माननीय अÅय± : राजा जी, म§ फÖटª टाइमर को िवशेष łप से बोलने का मौका देता हóँ । कोई भी फÖटª टाइमर माननीय सदÖय ऐसा नहé बोल सकता है िक मुझे बोलने का मौका नहé िदया गया । जय ÿकाश जी, म§ बोलने का मौका देता हóँ ना?

कब कहा 2026-04-17T00:00:00.000Z

किस वाद-विवाद में Papers laid on the Table of the House by Ministers/Members