New Delhi, 30 October 2007

Nuclear Controversy

SEEK SENSE OF PARLIAMENT

By Poonam I Kaushish

India’s endemic crisis of casualness has created another problem. A basic issue of critical importance to the future of our democracy, thrown up by the controversy over the Indo-US nuclear deal, has not received the attention it deserves: Is Parliament supreme vis a vis the Executive or is it not supreme? The Constitution is crystal clear in the matter. Article 75(3) provides: The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People or the Lok Sabha as it is popularly known.

The issue popped up initially when the UPA Government announced its willingness to hold a debate on the nuclear deal. The BJP-led NDA welcomed the debate but demanded a vote at the end. This was not acceptable to the Government. The matter came up again when the Government agreed to set up a Committee with the Left to resolve differences. The BJP objected and demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee to whet the deal. The Government again said no and an angry BJP thereafter stalled the monsoon session.

The Left, which has threatened to pull the rug time and again, wants Parliament to debate the deal but not vote on the motion as it would leave it with no elbow room for manoeuvre. Either it would have to vote against the deal, which would mean bringing down the Government. Or, it would simply have to walk out of the House, which would mean losing credibility and making a bigger laughing stock of themselves.

Top leaders of the UPA’s major allies ---- NCP’s Pawar, DMK’s Karunanidhi and RJD’s Laloo too rubbish all talk of a vote. That would constrain them to affix their seal of approval or disapproval, notwithstanding tall talk of misgivings about the deal. It could also result in a loss of power and patronage, which none wants at any cost.

The Congress expectedly opposes a vote. It knows only too well that a majority in the Lok Sabha, including the Left, is opposed to the deal. Any vote would surely lead to the Government’s exit. Hence, the emphasis on a debate without a vote. But then the Opposition justifiably asks: What purpose will a toothless debate sans voting serve?

It is, therefore, high time that the Government carries out its responsibilities honourably. It should summon both the Houses of Parliament without further delay. This could be done by either convening a special session forthwith or by advancing Parliament’s winter session, with at least a week earmarked solely for a full debate on the nuclear deal.

All parties, groups and MPs eager to participate in the debate must be provided adequate time to have their full say. Following which, ideally, the motion should be put to vote so as to leave no scope for any doubt about the will of Parliament. If the Government is still hell-bent against a vote, it should at least seek the sense of the Lok Sabha, which could be done without jeopardizing its own existence. If the sense is for the deal, the Government should go ahead. If not, the deal must be called off.

True, the Constitution does not specifically require the Government to take prior parliamentary approval for conducting the affairs of the State, including foreign policy, and seek ratification of international agreements. Nevertheless, in our democracy, Parliament is supreme vis a vis the Executive. The Government is answerable to it every minute of its existence.

Interestingly, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam too is of the same view. He has asserted in a newspaper article that absence of a legal dispensation requiring Parliamentary approval of major matters “is merely a technicality.” He adds: “Every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.”

Not just that. He adds: “If the Prime Minister had taken this step earlier, the present impasse could have been avoided. Either he was naïve or was ill-advised. But at least the Congress, which has ruled the country the longest and has vast experience of government, should have followed the correct path and got Parliament’s concurrence.”

Especially as India’s foreign policy is not the sole prerogative of any single party, or a coalition Government. In the present case too, what is at stake is India’s foreign policy and India’s nuclear deal, not that of the UPA. Time was when India’s foreign policy was bi-partisan under Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Wherein both sides of the political spectrum were agreed on basic issues. There was thus no occasion for successive Governments to seek prior Parliamentary approval.

The same does not hold good today. There are sharp differences on foreign policy. What is more, the UPA Government lacks a clear mandate. It is essentially a Government of post-poll opportunistic alliances. The Prime Minister is welcome to claim that the UPA enjoys a majority mandate and is, therefore, entitled to go ahead with the deal.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Congress won only 143 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. A simple majority totals 272 MPs. To make up the shortfall of over 130 MPs, the Party allied with the Left and smattering of regional outfits to form the Government. The UPA could have claimed a majority mandate had it gone to the polls as a united front. But it did not.

Questionably, can a Government which did not secure a proper majority mandate commit future generations of Indians to a deal which is opposed tooth and nail by a majority of the parties and groups in Parliament? Clearly, it would be right and proper for the Government to push ahead with the deal only if a majority favours it. Thus the least that the Government must do is to seek a sense of the Lok Sabha.

The Congress takes great and understandable pride in harking back to Nehru’s legacy time and again. Yet it conveniently forgets the supreme respect India’s first Prime Minister gave to Parliament. On one occasion, he even came to the Lok Sabha to request permission to leave New Delhi to attend a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London when Parliament was in session. Such was his great respect for Parliament.

Nehru need not have done so. Neither was it a Constitutional requirement nor did the rules of Parliament enjoin upon the Prime Minister to seek Parliament’s prior approval for going abroad. However, Nehru did so as it was the right thing to do vis-à-vis the highest temple of democracy. Today, even junior Ministers think nothing of departing without notice!

Nehru wanted India and its Parliamentarians to always draw inspiration from Britain, which works out its democracy admirably even when, unlike India, it has no written Constitution. Westminster functions on the premise of what is done and what is not done. Consequently, any Minister who comes under a cloud resigns because that is the right thing to do. No one demands a commission of enquiry or talks of the law taking its due course.

Merely because our Constitution or laws do not provide for prior Parliamentary approval before an international treaty like the nuclear deal is signed does not mean that the Government is scot free to do whatever it wants. Our Constitution does not, for instance, pointedly enjoin upon us Indians to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Does that mean we can merrily tell lies and damn lies?

Clearly, it is time that Parliament is summoned soonest and a sense of the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, ascertained on the deal. The Prime Minister need not worry about any loss of face. He should know that in a Cabinet form of Government, the PM is only the first among equals. Appropriately, he took the deal to the Cabinet and secured its approval. It is not his fault if his fair-weather allies have now chosen to desert him and undermine the coalition dharma.

Neither should the UPA worry that its Government would fall if the sense of the House, which is an implied vote, goes against the nuclear deal. After all, to quote Manmohan Singh: “The UPA Government is not a one issue Government”…. It would merely have “to live with certain disappointments…. and move on to the next….”

In sum, the UPA Government must take immediate steps to end the paralysis that now grips its functioning by having a full and detailed debate on the nuclear deal. The NDA, for its part, must cooperate and take note that the country has had enough of irresponsible stalling of the Houses. Every party, group must be given full opportunity for a threadbare discussion of the deal. Parliament must be enabled to express itself forthrightly. Either it is supreme vis-à-vis the Executive or it is not. We cannot have it both ways! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)        

New Delhi, 30 October 2007

Nuclear Controversy

SEEK SENSE OF PARLIAMENT

By Poonam I Kaushish

India’s endemic crisis of casualness has created another problem. A basic issue of critical importance to the future of our democracy, thrown up by the controversy over the Indo-US nuclear deal, has not received the attention it deserves: Is Parliament supreme vis a vis the Executive or is it not supreme? The Constitution is crystal clear in the matter. Article 75(3) provides: The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People or the Lok Sabha as it is popularly known.

The issue popped up initially when the UPA Government announced its willingness to hold a debate on the nuclear deal. The BJP-led NDA welcomed the debate but demanded a vote at the end. This was not acceptable to the Government. The matter came up again when the Government agreed to set up a Committee with the Left to resolve differences. The BJP objected and demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee to whet the deal. The Government again said no and an angry BJP thereafter stalled the monsoon session.

The Left, which has threatened to pull the rug time and again, wants Parliament to debate the deal but not vote on the motion as it would leave it with no elbow room for manoeuvre. Either it would have to vote against the deal, which would mean bringing down the Government. Or, it would simply have to walk out of the House, which would mean losing credibility and making a bigger laughing stock of themselves.

Top leaders of the UPA’s major allies ---- NCP’s Pawar, DMK’s Karunanidhi and RJD’s Laloo too rubbish all talk of a vote. That would constrain them to affix their seal of approval or disapproval, notwithstanding tall talk of misgivings about the deal. It could also result in a loss of power and patronage, which none wants at any cost.

The Congress expectedly opposes a vote. It knows only too well that a majority in the Lok Sabha, including the Left, is opposed to the deal. Any vote would surely lead to the Government’s exit. Hence, the emphasis on a debate without a vote. But then the Opposition justifiably asks: What purpose will a toothless debate sans voting serve?

It is, therefore, high time that the Government carries out its responsibilities honourably. It should summon both the Houses of Parliament without further delay. This could be done by either convening a special session forthwith or by advancing Parliament’s winter session, with at least a week earmarked solely for a full debate on the nuclear deal.

All parties, groups and MPs eager to participate in the debate must be provided adequate time to have their full say. Following which, ideally, the motion should be put to vote so as to leave no scope for any doubt about the will of Parliament. If the Government is still hell-bent against a vote, it should at least seek the sense of the Lok Sabha, which could be done without jeopardizing its own existence. If the sense is for the deal, the Government should go ahead. If not, the deal must be called off.

True, the Constitution does not specifically require the Government to take prior parliamentary approval for conducting the affairs of the State, including foreign policy, and seek ratification of international agreements. Nevertheless, in our democracy, Parliament is supreme vis a vis the Executive. The Government is answerable to it every minute of its existence.

Interestingly, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam too is of the same view. He has asserted in a newspaper article that absence of a legal dispensation requiring Parliamentary approval of major matters “is merely a technicality.” He adds: “Every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.”

Not just that. He adds: “If the Prime Minister had taken this step earlier, the present impasse could have been avoided. Either he was naïve or was ill-advised. But at least the Congress, which has ruled the country the longest and has vast experience of government, should have followed the correct path and got Parliament’s concurrence.”

Especially as India’s foreign policy is not the sole prerogative of any single party, or a coalition Government. In the present case too, what is at stake is India’s foreign policy and India’s nuclear deal, not that of the UPA. Time was when India’s foreign policy was bi-partisan under Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Wherein both sides of the political spectrum were agreed on basic issues. There was thus no occasion for successive Governments to seek prior Parliamentary approval.

The same does not hold good today. There are sharp differences on foreign policy. What is more, the UPA Government lacks a clear mandate. It is essentially a Government of post-poll opportunistic alliances. The Prime Minister is welcome to claim that the UPA enjoys a majority mandate and is, therefore, entitled to go ahead with the deal.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Congress won only 143 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. A simple majority totals 272 MPs. To make up the shortfall of over 130 MPs, the Party allied with the Left and smattering of regional outfits to form the Government. The UPA could have claimed a majority mandate had it gone to the polls as a united front. But it did not.

Questionably, can a Government which did not secure a proper majority mandate commit future generations of Indians to a deal which is opposed tooth and nail by a majority of the parties and groups in Parliament? Clearly, it would be right and proper for the Government to push ahead with the deal only if a majority favours it. Thus the least that the Government must do is to seek a sense of the Lok Sabha.

The Congress takes great and understandable pride in harking back to Nehru’s legacy time and again. Yet it conveniently forgets the supreme respect India’s first Prime Minister gave to Parliament. On one occasion, he even came to the Lok Sabha to request permission to leave New Delhi to attend a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London when Parliament was in session. Such was his great respect for Parliament.

Nehru need not have done so. Neither was it a Constitutional requirement nor did the rules of Parliament enjoin upon the Prime Minister to seek Parliament’s prior approval for going abroad. However, Nehru did so as it was the right thing to do vis-à-vis the highest temple of democracy. Today, even junior Ministers think nothing of departing without notice!

Nehru wanted India and its Parliamentarians to always draw inspiration from Britain, which works out its democracy admirably even when, unlike India, it has no written Constitution. Westminster functions on the premise of what is done and what is not done. Consequently, any Minister who comes under a cloud resigns because that is the right thing to do. No one demands a commission of enquiry or talks of the law taking its due course.

Merely because our Constitution or laws do not provide for prior Parliamentary approval before an international treaty like the nuclear deal is signed does not mean that the Government is scot free to do whatever it wants. Our Constitution does not, for instance, pointedly enjoin upon us Indians to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Does that mean we can merrily tell lies and damn lies?

Clearly, it is time that Parliament is summoned soonest and a sense of the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, ascertained on the deal. The Prime Minister need not worry about any loss of face. He should know that in a Cabinet form of Government, the PM is only the first among equals. Appropriately, he took the deal to the Cabinet and secured its approval. It is not his fault if his fair-weather allies have now chosen to desert him and undermine the coalition dharma.

Neither should the UPA worry that its Government would fall if the sense of the House, which is an implied vote, goes against the nuclear deal. After all, to quote Manmohan Singh: “The UPA Government is not a one issue Government”…. It would merely have “to live with certain disappointments…. and move on to the next….”

In sum, the UPA Government must take immediate steps to end the paralysis that now grips its functioning by having a full and detailed debate on the nuclear deal. The NDA, for its part, must cooperate and take note that the country has had enough of irresponsible stalling of the Houses. Every party, group must be given full opportunity for a threadbare discussion of the deal. Parliament must be enabled to express itself forthrightly. Either it is supreme vis-à-vis the Executive or it is not. We cannot have it both ways! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)        

New Delhi, 18 September 2007

Parliament Withering Away

DROWNED IN MPs ONSLAUGHT

By Poonam I Kaushish

We have been through all this before. Year after year. Of how India’s Parliament is increasingly being devalued. Virtually becoming a tamasha. Of crores of tax payers hard earned money being swept aside by the verbal torrent of puerile discourse that leads to walkouts, even near fist-cuffs. Wherein the very protectors of this high temple of democracy have become its denigrators and destroyers. 

Of how in their “collective wisdom” our MPs have been spewing sheer contempt on Parliament, wittingly or unwittingly. Reducing it into an akhara, where politically motivated bashing has become the order of the day and agenda a luxury to be taken up when lung power is exhausted. Epitomising a cesspool of every thing that has gone wrong with India today! Testimony to this sharp decline was this year’s shortest ever monsoon session of barely 17 days with the longest daily adjournments and hardly any work, a mere 64 hours.

Shockingly, the session, originally scheduled from 10 August till 14 September, was hurriedly cut short and adjourned sine die four days earlier. No, not because of lack of agenda or legislative business. But  due to the proceedings being disrupted in both House on a daily basis thanks to the stand-off between the Opposition and the Treasury benches on the Indo-Us nuclear deal. The former demanding a JPC on the contentious subject and the latter adamantly declining.

With the result that Parliament further lost credibility and prestige. Leading a much anguished Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee to state in his concluding remarks: “It is extremely disturbing that the highest public forum in the country has come to a standstill which has raised questions about the utility of our system of Parliamentary democracy and about its future.” Raising a moot point: Is Parliament becoming irrelevant?

That we are slowly but surely heading towards disaster is obvious. What troubles one is the new dimension to this age-old malaise. That it does not strike a chord among our Right Honourables. Who largely continue to drift along smugly without thinking of what they have done to Parliament. Of how they have mauled it and continue to do so. Most distressing is that there is no sense of outrage or shame. 

The legislative business transacted during the session illustrates how “powerless” Parliament has become in stemming the mounting rot. Let’s start with the Question Hour, the hyphen which links Parliament to Government and ensures ministerial accountability. Distressingly out of the 380 starred questions listed, only 35 could be answered. Thus, on an average, about 2.05 questions were answered per day. Why? The MPs were too busy --- rushing into the well of the House, raising slogans and preventing transaction of any business.

Mindlessly, ignoring the fact that the hour, treated as sacrosanct in the House of Commons, belongs to the private members and empowers them to push the Government and even it’s Prime Minister into the dock. Any member can ask any question within the framework of the rules. This, according to constitutional experts, is what makes the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy superior to all other systems. The crucial Question Hour consequently got “guillotined” time and again, notwithstanding the midnight oil burnt by various ministries preparing for the answers.

Not only that. Incredibly, four Bills were passed by the House without any discussion whatsoever due to continuous interruptions. No one cared that the bills failed to meet the conventional parliamentary requirement of three readings. The first reading is done when the Minister moves for the bill’s consideration and explains its philosophy and its broad parameters. Thereafter, the bill is closely thrashed out clause by clause in the second reading. The third and final reading is done when all the clauses and schedules, if any, have been considered and voted by the House and the Minister moves that the Bill be passed.

Veterans recall Nehru’s time when battles royal were fought during the second reading even over the placement of a comma! Surprised? Constitutionally and legally, the placing of a comma could make all the difference to the meaning of a clause. Lamented a Lok Sabha MP, “I worked long and hard preparing for speaking on one of the scheduled bills. All my effort is wasted. If one were to divide 64 hours by 17 sittings, only three-and-half days of concrete work have been transacted.”

As matters stand, Parliament has already been reduced to a farce. It has become an annual ritual to guillotine the demands for grants of various ministries totaling thousands of crores of rupees. What is more, the Treasury Benches are now increasingly using its brute majority to rubber stamp various policies trumpeted through ministerial fiats and ordinances. Remember, Parliament’s greatest strength and utility lies in its control over the Treasury. This has been systematically eroded. Bringing things to such a pass that a party in power today has no qualms in pushing ahead with populist pronouncements at the drop of a hat. Even when that goes against all Parliamentary norms.

Parliament’s all-round decline is today easily Delhi’s best known secret. Everyone talks about it. Not a few lament over it. Be it the quality of leadership, brand of MPs, parliamentary standards and debating skills. Worse, everyone also knows the raison de atre of this sorry state of affairs: the all-pervasive corrupt-criminal nexus and the all-enveloping caste-creed and vote-bank paradigm. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet all willy nilly abet it

Ironically, even as Parliament withered, it was a win-win session for our MPs. Who earned hefty salaries, perks and innumerable freebies including free lunches in the historic Central Hall, India’s most exclusive club, for shouting and playing truant. Normally, they should have been held accountable for their actions, as during the Nehru era. But no one seems to care anymore beyond shedding crocodile tears and indulging in boring rhetoric, as witnessed once more when the President presented Best Parliamentary awards on Wednesday to Sharad Pawar, Sushma Swaraj, P Chidambaram and Mani Shankar Aiyar.  

Parliamentary democracy can succeed only when the rules of the game are followed honestly. Constitutional and other steps therefore, need to be taken soonest to restore to our Parliament its functional glory as originally conceived. Bemoaned a senior CPI leader, “Parliament is being reduced to nothing. MPs are not doing their work but prefer to take allowances… the largest democracy is not functioning. This must be set right!”

The monsoon session has sharply posed a bigger question mark than ever before over the future of India’s parliamentary democracy. The issue is not just of our Right Honourables’ making ones presence felt by muscle-flexing in the House of the People and in the Council of States or even intolerance of another’s point of view. It is about upholding the highest standards of morality, credibility and dignity of Parliament. The MPs are servants of the people, not their masters.

If Parliament is to function and regain its lost lustre among the people, the Government and the Opposition have to bury the hatchet of distrust. The Treasury and the Opposition benches are two sides of the democratic coin and must ensure orderly debate, discussion and functioning. Remember, Parliamentary democracy succeeds only when the rules of the game are followed honestly.  Basically, the Opposition must have its say, even as the Government has its way. Else, it will lose its credibility and prestige. Worse, become redundant and irrelevant.

Clearly, it is time to give serious thought to rectifying the flaws in our system and urgently overhauling. If necessary, rules should be drastically changed to put Parliament back on the rails. Indira Gandhi once wisely said: “Parliament is a bulwark of democracy…. It has also a very heavy task of keeping an image that will gain it the faith and respect of the people. Because, if that is lost, then I don’t know what could happen later.” Time to heed her words and stop the drift towards disaster. ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 18 September 2007

Parliament Withering Away

DROWNED IN MPs ONSLAUGHT

By Poonam I Kaushish

We have been through all this before. Year after year. Of how India’s Parliament is increasingly being devalued. Virtually becoming a tamasha. Of crores of tax payers hard earned money being swept aside by the verbal torrent of puerile discourse that leads to walkouts, even near fist-cuffs. Wherein the very protectors of this high temple of democracy have become its denigrators and destroyers. 

Of how in their “collective wisdom” our MPs have been spewing sheer contempt on Parliament, wittingly or unwittingly. Reducing it into an akhara, where politically motivated bashing has become the order of the day and agenda a luxury to be taken up when lung power is exhausted. Epitomising a cesspool of every thing that has gone wrong with India today! Testimony to this sharp decline was this year’s shortest ever monsoon session of barely 17 days with the longest daily adjournments and hardly any work, a mere 64 hours.

Shockingly, the session, originally scheduled from 10 August till 14 September, was hurriedly cut short and adjourned sine die four days earlier. No, not because of lack of agenda or legislative business. But  due to the proceedings being disrupted in both House on a daily basis thanks to the stand-off between the Opposition and the Treasury benches on the Indo-Us nuclear deal. The former demanding a JPC on the contentious subject and the latter adamantly declining.

With the result that Parliament further lost credibility and prestige. Leading a much anguished Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee to state in his concluding remarks: “It is extremely disturbing that the highest public forum in the country has come to a standstill which has raised questions about the utility of our system of Parliamentary democracy and about its future.” Raising a moot point: Is Parliament becoming irrelevant?

That we are slowly but surely heading towards disaster is obvious. What troubles one is the new dimension to this age-old malaise. That it does not strike a chord among our Right Honourables. Who largely continue to drift along smugly without thinking of what they have done to Parliament. Of how they have mauled it and continue to do so. Most distressing is that there is no sense of outrage or shame. 

The legislative business transacted during the session illustrates how “powerless” Parliament has become in stemming the mounting rot. Let’s start with the Question Hour, the hyphen which links Parliament to Government and ensures ministerial accountability. Distressingly out of the 380 starred questions listed, only 35 could be answered. Thus, on an average, about 2.05 questions were answered per day. Why? The MPs were too busy --- rushing into the well of the House, raising slogans and preventing transaction of any business.

Mindlessly, ignoring the fact that the hour, treated as sacrosanct in the House of Commons, belongs to the private members and empowers them to push the Government and even it’s Prime Minister into the dock. Any member can ask any question within the framework of the rules. This, according to constitutional experts, is what makes the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy superior to all other systems. The crucial Question Hour consequently got “guillotined” time and again, notwithstanding the midnight oil burnt by various ministries preparing for the answers.

Not only that. Incredibly, four Bills were passed by the House without any discussion whatsoever due to continuous interruptions. No one cared that the bills failed to meet the conventional parliamentary requirement of three readings. The first reading is done when the Minister moves for the bill’s consideration and explains its philosophy and its broad parameters. Thereafter, the bill is closely thrashed out clause by clause in the second reading. The third and final reading is done when all the clauses and schedules, if any, have been considered and voted by the House and the Minister moves that the Bill be passed.

Veterans recall Nehru’s time when battles royal were fought during the second reading even over the placement of a comma! Surprised? Constitutionally and legally, the placing of a comma could make all the difference to the meaning of a clause. Lamented a Lok Sabha MP, “I worked long and hard preparing for speaking on one of the scheduled bills. All my effort is wasted. If one were to divide 64 hours by 17 sittings, only three-and-half days of concrete work have been transacted.”

As matters stand, Parliament has already been reduced to a farce. It has become an annual ritual to guillotine the demands for grants of various ministries totaling thousands of crores of rupees. What is more, the Treasury Benches are now increasingly using its brute majority to rubber stamp various policies trumpeted through ministerial fiats and ordinances. Remember, Parliament’s greatest strength and utility lies in its control over the Treasury. This has been systematically eroded. Bringing things to such a pass that a party in power today has no qualms in pushing ahead with populist pronouncements at the drop of a hat. Even when that goes against all Parliamentary norms.

Parliament’s all-round decline is today easily Delhi’s best known secret. Everyone talks about it. Not a few lament over it. Be it the quality of leadership, brand of MPs, parliamentary standards and debating skills. Worse, everyone also knows the raison de atre of this sorry state of affairs: the all-pervasive corrupt-criminal nexus and the all-enveloping caste-creed and vote-bank paradigm. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet all willy nilly abet it

Ironically, even as Parliament withered, it was a win-win session for our MPs. Who earned hefty salaries, perks and innumerable freebies including free lunches in the historic Central Hall, India’s most exclusive club, for shouting and playing truant. Normally, they should have been held accountable for their actions, as during the Nehru era. But no one seems to care anymore beyond shedding crocodile tears and indulging in boring rhetoric, as witnessed once more when the President presented Best Parliamentary awards on Wednesday to Sharad Pawar, Sushma Swaraj, P Chidambaram and Mani Shankar Aiyar.  

Parliamentary democracy can succeed only when the rules of the game are followed honestly. Constitutional and other steps therefore, need to be taken soonest to restore to our Parliament its functional glory as originally conceived. Bemoaned a senior CPI leader, “Parliament is being reduced to nothing. MPs are not doing their work but prefer to take allowances… the largest democracy is not functioning. This must be set right!”

The monsoon session has sharply posed a bigger question mark than ever before over the future of India’s parliamentary democracy. The issue is not just of our Right Honourables’ making ones presence felt by muscle-flexing in the House of the People and in the Council of States or even intolerance of another’s point of view. It is about upholding the highest standards of morality, credibility and dignity of Parliament. The MPs are servants of the people, not their masters.

If Parliament is to function and regain its lost lustre among the people, the Government and the Opposition have to bury the hatchet of distrust. The Treasury and the Opposition benches are two sides of the democratic coin and must ensure orderly debate, discussion and functioning. Remember, Parliamentary democracy succeeds only when the rules of the game are followed honestly.  Basically, the Opposition must have its say, even as the Government has its way. Else, it will lose its credibility and prestige. Worse, become redundant and irrelevant.

Clearly, it is time to give serious thought to rectifying the flaws in our system and urgently overhauling. If necessary, rules should be drastically changed to put Parliament back on the rails. Indira Gandhi once wisely said: “Parliament is a bulwark of democracy…. It has also a very heavy task of keeping an image that will gain it the faith and respect of the people. Because, if that is lost, then I don’t know what could happen later.” Time to heed her words and stop the drift towards disaster. ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)