Munish Sood
Mandi
The Congress government’s promise of providing one lakh jobs every year came under sharp attack in the Himachal Pradesh Assembly on Monday, as the Opposition BJP demanded an immediate debate on the employment situation, triggering a heated exchange between the treasury benches and Opposition members.
Soon after Question Hour, BJP legislators Randhir Sharma, Hans Raj, Sudhir Sharma and Rakesh Jambal sought suspension of the day’s business under Rule 67 to take up the issue of jobs and unemployment. They argued that the government’s employment promise was directly linked to the future of thousands of young people and therefore deserved an immediate discussion.
Randhir Sharma insisted that the matter be taken up under Rule 67, alleging that the Congress government had failed to deliver on its employment commitments and had, in his words, made a “mockery” of the aspirations of the youth. He accused the government of trying to avoid a discussion and demanded that all other business be suspended to debate the issue.
The Speaker, however, clarified that notices on the same subject had also been received under Rules 63 and 130. Since the Rule 67 notices substantially related to the same matter, they would not be rejected but would be converted and taken up under Rule 130.
Harshvardhan Chauhan, Parliamentary Affairs Minister, defended the Speaker’s decision, saying Rule 67 was meant for matters of exceptional urgency and should not be invoked routinely. He said the employment issue could be discussed under Rule 130 and assured the House that it could be taken up the following day.
The explanation failed to satisfy the Opposition. Sharma hit back, saying that unemployment might be “drama” for the Congress, but it was a serious issue for the BJP and, more importantly, for the state’s unemployed youth.
The political temperature rose further when Deputy Chief Minister Mukesh Agnihotri questioned the Opposition’s priorities. Referring to the recent debate over the national song and national anthem, he asked why the BJP had allowed that issue to consume nearly 72 hours if unemployment was genuinely its biggest concern.
Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur rejected the argument and accused the government of deliberately downplaying the Opposition’s concerns. He said unemployment remained the most pressing issue facing the state and reminded the Congress of its electoral commitment to provide five lakh jobs in five years, including one lakh jobs every year.
The Opposition, Thakur said, wanted a clear answer from the government on a simple question: How many jobs have actually been created against the five-lakh promise? He again pressed for an immediate discussion under Rule 67.
Chauhan countered by pointing to the remaining tenure of the government, saying around one year and three months were still left and that the Congress government was working to fulfil the guarantees made to the people. He cited implementation of the Old Pension Scheme as a major commitment fulfilled by the government and maintained that other guarantees were also being implemented.
The Parliamentary Affairs Minister then turned the attack towards the BJP, recalling the Centre’s promise of creating two crore jobs every year and questioning the Opposition over the progress made on that commitment.
The Speaker later made it clear that the Opposition’s Rule 67 notice had not been rejected. He reiterated that the rule was reserved for matters of exceptional importance and, since proposals on unemployment had also been submitted under Rules 63 and 130, the Rule 67 notice had been converted to Rule 130 rather than rejected.
The exchange lasted nearly 20 minutes after Question Hour before the House moved on to Zero Hour.
The episode, however, once again put the Congress government’s much-publicised employment guarantee under the spotlight, with the Opposition demanding concrete figures on jobs delivered and the treasury benches countering with their own record of promises and implementation. The political battle over employment is now set to continue when the matter is taken up for discussion under Rule 130.
