The idea is that, if the bill is referred to the Standing Committee and does not get passed in the current session of Parliament, this will give the BJP enough time to placate its own party, as well its allies and the RSS and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch who have been bitterly opposing the bill.

The fact of the matter is that, for all practical purposes, the BJP's proposed legislation is not too different from that proposed by the United Front Government when it was in power. Sure, the level of foreign equity is different, but the principle is the same -- that of breaking up the public sector stranglehold over insurance and allowing the Indian private sector into the area, along with someforeign equity.

In May 1997, the all-party Standing Committee on Finance studied the proposed Insurance Regulatory Authority Bill in detail and approved of it. Though the original IRA bill, as proposed by the then Finance Minister P Chidambaram, did not specifically mention private sector entry into insurance -- the IRA was meant to set up a regulatory authority for the sector -- the Standing Committee discussed this in detail. Primarily because it was obvious that once the IRA was in place, the private sector would be allowed into insurance.

The committee was headed by Janata Dal leader Sharad Yadav and had MPs who are now Ministers in the BJP Government. These include HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, Environment Minister Suresh Prabhu and Agriculture Minister Som Pal. Joshi is now seen as one of the BJP leaders who is opposed to the bill.

In its report, the Standing Committee on Finance said, ``The Committee is given to understand that the setting up of Statutory Insurance Regulatory Authority is aprelude to the liberation of the insurance sector and its opening up to private and foreign players.'' But it did not say that it was opposed to this plan of the Government. Instead the Committee went on to say, ``The Committee feels that as and when insurance sector is opened to private sector companies, there should be a level playing field for all insurance companies, whether in the public or in the private sector.''

More importantly, the Committee has made a fairly progressive statement by saying, ``The Committee recommends that in order to give a rightful role to the Authority and to give just and equitable treatment to insurance companies in the private sector, the LIC Act and the GIBNA (General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act) should be suitably amended to restore the original powers of the controller to the Authority.'' The only voice of dissent has been from CPI(M) MP Biplab Dasgupta, who said that privatisation was not necessary to ensure competition. He asked for autonomy and independencefor the four subsidiaries of the General Insurance Corporation which could compete among themselves. In any case, the contention of the BJP that all Bills placed in the Parliament have to be passed by the Departmental Standing Committee, is incorrect.

A bill is referred to a Parliamentary panel only if the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha MPs feel that the issue in question needs to be studied in detail. The panel's recommendations is given to both the Houses, who then decide to pass or reject the bill.