REWIND

New Delhi, 1 May 2025

BEYOND A NO-WAR PACT

By Inder Jit

(Released on 19 January 1982) 

Silent prayers of most people in India and Pakistan anxious to see the two countries bury the proverbial hatchet and strengthen friendly ties appear to have been heard at long last. An absurd and incredible war of words on Pakistan's proposal for a no-war pact between the two countries has ended! On December 27, New Delhi eventually showed good sense and conveyed to Islamabad its willingness to sign a no-war pact on the basis of certain principles. Islamabad has since reacted positively to New Delhi's delayed response to its proposal. The stage is now set for talks between the two Foreign Ministers Mr Agha Shahi and Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao on January 30 and 31. Mr Agha Shahi is arriving a day earlier at the suggestion of Pakistan's Ambassador, Mr Sattar. This will enable him to witness Beating Retreat, a grand finale to the Republic Day celebrations. Queen Elizabeth, who witnessed this ceremonial function many years ago, is known to have stated that she had not seen the like of such a magnificent spectacle anywhere any time.

Pakistan has so far played its cards adroitly. It has not only got Washington to give it F-16s but projected itself as a country anxious to build bridges with India. In distressing contrast, India has lost once again in terms of its image abroad. It should have promptly welcomed the offer of a no-war pact and rejoiced over the fact that Islamabad had, after all, seen light and accepted something which New Delhi had first proposed in 1949. At the same time, it should have expressed the hope that Islamabad was sincere and genuinely desired a no-war pact. In doing so, it would have neatly put the ball back in Pakistan's court in the first instance. True, New Delhi's stance helped internally. It made people conscious of the new dangers and diverted their minds from problems at home. But this line did not cut much ice abroad. Remember, the joint statement issued at the end of Mr Rao's last visit to Islamabad included the following: "Both sides agreed that each country had the sovereign right to acquire arms for self defence."

Considerable ground has been covered already in diplomatic exchange India has proposed acceptance of seven principles for signing the no-war agreement. These are said to be essential elements of the Simla Agreement and include what may be described as the principles of peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, bilateralism and non-alignment. Pakistan for its part, has called the proposals "constructive" and assured India that it stands by the Simla Agreement. But it wants certain clarifications in regard to the precise meaning and scope of some of these principles in the context of their manifestly authoritative elaboration in the Indian Press. India has, for instance, proposed that both countries should revert to bilateralism for resolving all their differences and disputes -- as provided for in the Simla Agreement. New Delhi, according to one interpretation, believes that this bars Islamabad from raising Kashmir or any other bilateral dispute at the UN or other world forums. 

Islamabad, I learn, does not accept India's interpretation. It concedes that the two countries have resolved under the Simla Agreement "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". But it argues that this does not bar it from using a standard form to mention Kashmir at the UN or any international forum on two counts. First, the Simla Agreement provides for "a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir". Second, it stipulates that in Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides "without prejudice to the recognised position of either side". This recognised position is said to be in regard to its stand on Kashmir at the UN, an item which is still inscribed on the agenda of the world body. How can Pakistan, it is asked, be prevented from stating at the UN that it desires "durable peace" in the sub-continent and looks forward to "a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir" in accordance with the Simla Agreement?

A question which is, therefore, certain to come up at the forthcoming talks is: what exactly is bilateralism? Interestingly, the word does not occur in the Simla Accord though, I am told, Krishna Menon in India and Bhutto in Pakistan had their own thesis on the subject. In addition, one or two books are even said to have been written on the subject. Clearly, this is one point which will need to be clarified in the forthcoming talks so as to leave no scope for hard feelings or bitterness in the future on either side. Pakistan may have its point in regard to mentioning Kashmir in the course of saying its annual piece in the UN General Assembly. But India, too, has its point. How far is Pakistan justified in raising the Kashmir issue at other international forums as, for instance, at the Islamic Summit? At one stage, General Zia not only mentioned Kashmir in the course of his speech at the Islamic Summit but virtually asked for support of the "Umma" -- the Islamic community -- in resolving the issue to Islamabad's satisfaction.

India's proposals made in an aide memoire do not specifically mention Kashmir or, for that matter, the question of foreign bases, arms race or nuclear weapons. However, Islamabad has also reacted to the interpretation given to the principle of non-alignment and steps suggested by New Delhi to put "a brake on the arms race," Strict adherence to non-alignment, it was stated in the Indian Press, would commit the two countries against granting their territories for establishing military bases by foreign powers. These reports further stated that this implication of non-alignment was particularly important in the context of reports that Pakistan was constructing a major port at Gwadur, 250 km west of Karachi, with the assistance of an Asian power. The Asian power was said to have made its help available on the basis of some "secret" understanding. India, therefore, wanted to be assured that a no-war pact between the two countries would bar Pakistan from converting Gwadur from a commercial port into a foreign naval base.

Pakistan, it appears, would also like to pose the question: What precisely is non-alignment? Does membership of the movement clash with a member's sovereign rights? Islamabad is reportedly keen to ensure that the principles advocated by India do not detract from the sovereignty of either country. Pakistan, it is argued, has chosen of its own accord to give up its membership of CENTO and join the non-aligned club. It has no desire or intention to forget the lessons of the past and offer its territory for foreign military bases. But it wants to go by the precise definition of non-alignment as given by the founders of the movement and by the movement itself over the years in resolutions of the Non-Aligned Conference -- and not by any arbitrary interpretation of any one country. Simultaneously, as the smaller of the two countries vis-a-vis India, it wants to be clear that nothing abridges its sovereign rights in regard to the UN Charter, especially in the maintenanceof peace and security.

Now the arms race. Pakistan appears to be coming ready to revive its earlier proposal for an accord on force ratios. The proposal was initially mooted by Islamabad in 1980 -- first to India's Foreign Secretary, Mr Ram Sathe, next to Mr Swaran Singh when he called on Gen Zia and, thereafter in July, by Mr Shahi in his controversial banquet speech in New Delhi. The proposal was renewed by Mr Shahi during his meeting with Mr Rao in Islamabad in mid-1981. Mr Rao then reminded Mr Shahi of the understanding reached during his visit to New Delhi, India had then urged that the issue should be taken up only "at the appropriate time" after a broad political understanding had been reached. Significantly. Gen Zia also broached the subject during his talk with Mr Rao. But the latter pointed out that he and Mr Shahi had already agreed not to talk about it yet. Candidly, New Delhi needs to respond boldly to such an offer and to thereby test Islamabad's sincerity. Time was when Pakistan demanded parity. Today, it talks of force ratios leading one to quip: If Washington and Moscow can have SALT, why cannot New Delhi and Islamabad have MALT?

Talks on mutual arms limitation or a no-war pact does not necessarily mean that durable peace will be assured. India, as the Prime Minister has emphasised, will need to keep its guard up and not take any chances. Experience shows that mere condemnation of war or its renunciation is not enough. Prior to the Simla Agreement, provisions of renouncing war were incorporated in one form or another in three previous agreements: the Nehru-Noon Agreement of September 12, 1958 on border disputes, the Indo-Pakistan Agreement of October 23, 1959, on border incidents, and the Tashkent Declaration made jointly by Lal Bahadur Shastri and Gen Ayub Khan on January 10, 1966. The Declaration stated in its first paragraph: "The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree that both sides will exert all efforts to create good neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter. They reaffirm their obligation under the Charter not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes through peaceful means..."

In sum, the Indo-Pakistan parleys pose a test in creativeness and innovativeness -- and in forging understanding in regard to the words used. (Nehru said once that much of the trouble in the world today arose because the same words meant different things to different people.) Both sides need to shed mutual suspicions and take the next step towards a no-war pact which, significantly, is not regarded for the first time in Pakistan as a sell-out on Kashmir! Full agreement need not necessarily be reached in one go. The Simla Accord, it may be recalled, was drafted following an extensive exchange of views between the two Governments. The special emissaries of the two sides met first at April-end 1972 in Muree and this exchange was continued at Simla. The important thing is to have a meaningful dialogue for establishing enduring peace and not only build mutual confidence but direct thoughts beyond a no-war pact. Our two peoples are basically tired of confrontation and conflict. They yearn to live like brothers and share in the greater glory of peace for the two countries.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 24 April 2025

PRESIDENT, JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE

By Inder Jit

(Released on 10 December 1985) 

New Delhi and, more especially, Parliament's Central Hall continue to buzz over the Indian Express vs Jagmohan affair against the backdrop of the grim and timely warning sounded by the Chief Justice of India, Mr P.N. Bhagwati, in regard to the country's judicial system and two other developments. First, the debate in Parliament on the Supreme Court judgment in the Indian Express case which is increasingly viewed by impartial observers as a deplorable assault on the country's highest Court. Second, the sharp frontal attack by Mr Ram Nath Goenka on the Minister of State for Law, Mr H.R. Bhardwaj, in the Indian Express of November 30 and the subsequent motions of breach of privilege moved by Prof Madhu Dandavate and Mr K.P. Unnikrishnan in the Lok Sabha on December 2. Also adding significant grist to the capital's usually well-informed gossip mills is Giani Zail Singh's reported distress over the unfortunate happenings in Parliament vis a vis the Supreme Court and the "courtesy call" by Mr Justice Bhagwati, on the President not long after the latter returned from his visit to Sikkim and Bihar.

The Minister of State for Law and the Congress-I benches in Parliament were manifestly elated on November 28 and 29 when the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha concluded their debates on the Supreme Court judgment in the Indian Express case on Opposition motions seeking the ouster of Mr Jagmohan from the office of Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court, the Opposition leaders had argued, had passed severe strictures against Mr Jagmohan. It was, therefore, only right and proper that he now resigned his high office. But Mr Bhardwaj and prominent Congress-I members successfully used their massive majority to defeat the motions after successfully side-tracking the main issue. They spotlighted the judgment and sought to push both Mr Goenka and the then Minister of Works and Housing, Mr Sikander Bakht, into the dock instead of dealing with the issue before the two Houses: the Supreme Court's judgment on Mr Jagmohan's review petition. But by Monday, December 2, Prof Dandavate had more than settled his score with the Minister of State and the ruling party, thanks to Mr Goenka's attack on Mr Bhardwaj and others.

Prof Dandavate, Janata, and Mr. Unnikrishnan, Congress-S, urged the Speaker to refer their respective motions to the Privileges Committee on the ground that Mr Goenka, Chairman of the Indian Express Group and himself a member of the House once, was guilty of breach of privilege. Said Prof Dandavate: "I am raising a very important issue connected with the House on which the entire House would agree. When the debate on Mr Jagmohan took place here, the Minister made certain observations explaining the Government's position. On 30^th, Mr Ram Nath Goenka has written an article..." The Speaker interrupted: "I am looking into it." But Prof Dandavate went on: "Sir, in that article he has called our Minister as delinquent as far as that House is concerned and juvenile here..." The Speaker again intervened: "I will look into it." But Prof Dandavate pushed ahead as is his won't and said: "If our Minister is called juvenile here and delinquent there, that House will take care of the delinquency but you have to take care of his juvenileness. Therefore, the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee... so that Mr Goenka's allegations may be cleared,"

Ironically but eloquently, the Treasury benches stayed silent. Prof.Dandavate then shrewdly moved ahead for his kill like an adept Parliamentarian and said: "I am surprised that no member of the ruling party is disturbed by this article". The speaker averred: "You ask them, sir, not me". Mr Unnikrishnan was now on his feet seeking to raise another related issue: arrival of 55 MLAs from Kerala in New Delhi in support of the demands of coconut farmers. The Speaker ruled: "If there is anything, we can again discuss it." Prof.Dandavate again asked: “What is the response of the Parliamentary Affairs Minister to my privilege motion”. The speaker replied: "I do not know”. Mr KrupasindhuBhoi, Congress-I, intervened: "Sir, Prof Dandavate and Mr Unnikrishnan are bringing in again and again malignant hallucination to this House." Prof Dandavate was once again on his feet and repeated his earlier question: “we would like to know from the Parliamentary Affairs Minister as to what is his response to this privilege motion?" But the Minister, Mr H.Κ.L. Bhagat, refused to be moved -- and sat in stony silence.

Clearly, the silence told its own story. Mr Bhagat and his colleagues chose to face humiliating embarrassment and even be shown up as "spineless" rather than walk into Prof Dandavate's trap. Nothing would have suited the Opposition more than to get the issue referred to the Privileges Committee and have the matter thrashed out again first in the Lok Sabha and then in the Committee, wherein the ruling party would have found it difficult to side-track the main issue and, what is more, to defend Mr Bhardwaj and his conduct in Parliament. Interestingly, Mr George Ferandez sought in 1975 to get the Pondicherry Licence scandal discussed by the House through an identical stratagem. He wrote a brazenly defamatory article against the Lok Sabha in Pratipaksha, a socialist Party paper, and even likened it to "a brothel House". Prof Dandavate then brought forward a motion of breach of privilege. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Mr K. Raghurammiah, was provoked and seemed inclined to support reference of the issue to the Privileges Committee. But he soon saw the trap and pulled back.

Meanwhile, the controversy has been sharpened by the bizarre happenings in the Supreme Court Bar Association beginning with its meeting on November 28 called specifically to discuss the issue arising out of the Supreme Court judgment. At this meeting, Mr S.N. Kacker, who is the President of the Association, strongly criticised Mr Bhardwaj for his attack on the Supreme Court judges and said: "We cannot ignore what he has said... The Bar is capable of expelling Mr Bhardwaj... We must be up against anyone who insults the judiciary." However, he did not push ahead and agreed to adjourn it until Tuesday so that the members could have the benefit of the transcript of Mr Bhardwaj's speeches in Parliament. On Tuesday, supporters of Mr Bhardwaj from all over Delhi packed the meeting and reportedly adopted a resolution even after Mr Kacker had adjourned the meeting and left. They put the Attorney-General, Mr K. Parasaran, in the chair and got him to put the resolution to vote. The resolution not only condemned Mr Kacker but asked him to render "an unconditional and unqualified apology" for his remarks against Mr Bhardwaj.

Developments took a new turn when 120 members of the Supreme Court Bar Association met a day later -- on Wednesday, under the presidentship of Mr Shanti Bhusan, former Law Minister and adopted a resolution condemning Mr K. Parasaran, Attorney-General of India, for having presided over Tuesday's meeting. The resolution read as follows: "We the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association strongly condemn the so-called meeting of the Bar held on the 3 December 1985 which the Attorney-General is supposed to have chaired". The meeting expressed complete faith in and solidarity with Mr Kacker, the duly-elected President of the Association. In fact, the meeting further held that the conduct of Mr Parasaran in presiding over the meeting was unbecoming and worthy of the office of the Attorney General of India when Kackerhad adjourned the meeting and left. According to one press report, over 100 advocates who participated in the Wednesday meeting were seen daily practising in the Supreme Court, whereas ninety per cent of the advocates present at Tuesday's meeting were not seen in the Supreme Court daily.

Controversy continues on two questions. First, whether the judgment would have been different if the concessions stated to have been made by Mr .LN. Sinha, former Attorney General and counsel for the Union of India, and Mr. M.C. Bhandare, counsel for Delhi Municipal Corporation, had not been made. Second, whether Mr Sinha and Bhandare should have been given a hearing before the Judges passed adverse remarks against them. First, informed circles maintain that the final conclusions reached in the judgment do not rest on the concessions. Said one legal luminary: "Even if these concessions are discarded, the process of reasoning leads to the same conclusion”. Second, the Supreme Court Bar Association has taken the stand that Mr Sinha and Mr Bhandare should have been given a hearing. However, some veterans feel that this was not necessary. At any rate, there appears to be little question of the two counsels getting a hearing now unless they make amends. Perhaps, the matter should best rest with the dismissal of the review. If there is to be a hearing, it can only be had on the filing of affidavits. This could lead to further complications.

More of the debate on Parliament's assault on the Supreme Court is bound to be heard in the days and weeks to come -- unless enlightened and immediateefforts are made to sort out matters in the best national interest. Thought will also need to be given to the question of reforming the system and eliminating delays in the delivery of judgments. But a few things need to be done without delay. One hopes Mr Justice Bhagwati, who met the President last week, has already taken up the issue with the Prime Minister. Further, that he will, if necessary, take an early opportunity to speak on the subject. (Not a few in New Delhi were disappointed at the absence of any reference to the issue -- even between lines -- in his address to the Lawyers' Forum in Calcutta on November 30.) Fortunately, the President has evinced interest in the matter as he is duty-bound by the oath of his office -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. At a function to honour Mr Justice Bhagwati, the President said: "The people expect much from the Supreme Court." I might add the people also expect much from the President and the Prime Minister. Perhaps, Mr Rajiv Gandhi might consider the advisability of making a statement in Parliament to put an end to the controversy.--- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 17 April 2025

TRICK ON MUSLIM COMMUNITY

By Syed Shahabuddin, M.P.

(Released on 12 February 1982) 

Eversince the passage of the AMU (Amendment) Bill, 1980, it has been repeatedly asserted that the Bill restores the minority character of the AMU, and that Mrs Gandhi has fulfilled her electoral promise to the Muslim community. As usual, the courtiers and the sycophants have been blowing the horn and beating the drums to announce this.

The fact, however, is that the Bill, which is a positive development, dose not restore the minority character of the institution. It does not even unequivocally answer the fundamental question whether the University was established by the Muslim community or by an Act of the legislature. Without an unequivocal answer on this point, no right to administer it accrues to the Muslim community. Consequently, the Court of the University has no in-built Muslim majority nor are its decisions final even in the matters of statutes or in the appointment of the Vice Chancellor.

As a matter of record, it may be added that not a single amendment suggested by the All India Muslim University Action Committee was accepted by the Government or incorporated in the Bill although some of them were introduced in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, despite the surprise manner in which the Bill was taken up at the last minute.

The text of the definition clause, which is the heart of the matter, is as follows: ""University' means, the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which organised as the Mohamedan Anglo Oriental College, Aligarh and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University".

Obviously, it has been cleverly worded. It speaks of the establishment of an educational institution' by the Muslim community. It is not clear whether it means the University or the MAO College. But the next phrase lets the cat out of the bag: This educational institution originated as the MAD college. Can anyone assert that 'establish' and 'originate’ refer to different entities, events, situations, sets of facts or institutions? No, they refer to the same institution i.e. MAC College. Can anyone explain the need for mentioning the MAO College at all, except to confuse the issue? The BHU Act does not mention the Central Hindu College, the percursor of the BHU.

The Supreme Court in Azeez Pasha case has ruled (one hopes that they soon over-rule their ruling which has been, in the words of several 'productive of much public mischief') that the Act of 1920, and not the Muslim community, established the AMU. That remains the law of the land because that decision has not been overturned by this Bill. The Bill does not contain any 'no obstante clause e.g. "notwithstanding any judgement or order of any court of India", as is normally done in corrective legislation; secondly, the main spokesman of the Government in the Rajya Sabha, Mr N.K.P. Salve, went on record to support the Supreme Court view: thirdly, the Minister of Education nowhere advanced the specific argument or stated that the Bill overrules the judgment of the Supreme Court.

There is further circumstantial evidence to the negative. The statement of Object and Reasons of the Bill does not mention the words 'minority character'; the Minister in her opening statement referred alternately to 'Minority character' and 'historical character'. She omitted to explain the elements of 'minority character' as understood by the Government or how those elements were incorporated in the Bill.

The legal import of the Bill is thus that the opinion of the Supreme Court far from being thrown overboard has been given a new sanction. Thus, the Government have played a trick on the Muslim community and created an illusion for their political benefit, instead of taking them into confidence and setting the political limits of what is practiceable and what is not.

The Minorities Commission had suggested a simpler definition: "’University', means the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, and which was incorporated and designated as Aligarh Muslim University in 1920 by this Act." The Commission had specifically suggested that the reference to the MAO College be cut out. It had also suggested the inclusion of a 'no obstante' clause. Some Muslim MPs (including some belonging to Congress-I) had suggested the addition of a 'no obstante' clause and/or substitution of the words 'educational institution' by the word 'university'. All these fell upon deaf ears. The illusion-mongers were confident of deceiving the spectators. So why give an iota more than necessary?

The question has been asked and no satisfactory reply has been forthcoming as to why the Bill was taken off the shelf suddenly one year after introduction, dusted and pushed through Parliament at the fag end of the last session at a day's notice. The Government had not included it in the business for the last week, decided at the last meeting of the Business Advisory Committees of the two Houses. Even the Vice President, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, was informed of the Government intent only on the preceding day on the cricket ground!

One may surmise that the orders came from above and the parliamentary minions rushed to carry it out, a sad reflection on the dignity of Parliament and the way the government take Parliament for granted. But what was the reason for the order from above? A sudden pang of conscience, a sudden itch to fulfil a promise, a sudden realisation that the delay had alienated Muslim opinion? It may be all of that.

The delay had indeed alienated Muslim opinion. And yet perhaps the Supreme Court decision to review the Azeez Pasha case on its own must have provoked the thought that if the Supreme Court itself come to the conclusion that the University had indeed been established by the Muslim community, the Government would be forced into recognising its minority character, including handing over the administration and management to the Muslim community, without reaping any political harvest, without gaining any credit for fulfilling a promise, assuming that undoing a patent wrong deserved credit. Hence, the headlong rush; hence the drumbeating and trumpet-blowing to convince the Muslim community of the mirage of success.

However, the Muslim community, except for the loyalists, have taken the Bill in their stride, as a stage in the long battle for the restoration of the University. The next act of the drama shall reopen in the Supreme Court. Let us see what the Government case is. Let us hope that Mr Salve is not given the government brief. If the Supreme Court unequivocally rules that the University was established by the Muslim community, which, therefore, has the right to administer it, an entirely new situation will arise. A completely new Act will be called for and will have to follow.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 10 April 2025

EXPUNCTIONS IN HOUSE A SCANDAL

By Inder Jit

(Released on 30 March 1982) 

Giani Zail Singh’s gaffe over Hitler in the Lok Sabha has proved to be a blessing in disguise. Personally, I missed the hangama and all the fun and excitement for two days. I was then away from New Delhi – revisited Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Assam and Meghalaya. However, the incident has brought to the fore with a bang what many consider an expunction scandal. Over the past few years, expunction of proceedings in our Parliament have become the order of the day without raising much of a protest from the Opposition. Parliamentary procedures do provide for expunction or deletion of words that are unparliamentarily. But matters have come to such a sorry pass today that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha think nothing of directing that “this shall not go on record.” Not many are aware that the increasing tendency to expunge at will strikes at the basic structure of our parliamentary democracy --- and the freedom of speech guaranteed to MPs in the Constitution.

Parliamentary democracy, as we all know, is rule by discussion and debate – and through compromise and consensus. Undoubtedly, there are times when the Government has to assert its majority and push ahead with its decisions. Nevertheless, parliamentary democracy basically provides that the Opposition must have its say even as the Government has it way. This concept is also enshrined in the principle that there can be no taxation without representation in any democracy worth its name. Freedom of speech is thus fundamental to Parliament’s functioning and is accordingly assured by Article 105 of the Constitution which provides that “subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.” Not only that. The article also provides: “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.” Remember, this protected MPs from speaking freely in Parliament following proclamation of the Emergency in June 1975.

The Rules of Procedures of the Lok Sabha do provide that if the Speaker is of the opinion that words which have been used in the debate are defamatory, indecent, unparliamentarily or undignified, he may, in his discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House. However, what is happening today goes way beyond the original concept and bears no relationship to the approach in Britain and elsewhere. The practice in the Commons has been to avoid expunctions. The Speaker there insists upon objectionable expressions being withdrawn. If the member refuses to do so, the Speaker either directs him to withdraw from the House for the day or names him for disregarding the Chair’s authority in which case a motion for his suspension from the service of the House is made and the question put forthwith. An expert doubts if anything more than 30 words have been expunged in the Commons in the past ten years. A Speaker in Canada was once removed from his office, notwithstanding his personal popularity, for expunging on his own certain remarks of a member. In sharp contrast, the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha expunged last week his own remarks for the second time in the past few months.

Interestingly, there was no specific rule relating to expunction in the Central Legislative Assembly prior to 1947. Nationalist members of the Assembly were consequently able to say almost anything against British rule. Normally, when unparliamentary words of expressions were used, the Speaker intervened either on his own initiative or on objection raised by a member or a Minister, and called upon the offending member to make amends. This took one of three forms: withdrawal of words or expressions or (b) tendering of apology and giving an assurance not to use the words again or (c) in a relatively few cases, substitution of new words for those objectionable. The objectionable words and their subsequent withdrawal or other mode of disposal were, however, allowed to remain on record. In exceptional cases where such remedies were considered inadequate, expunction was ordered. On such occasions, the general practice was to obtain the formal consent of the House on a motion emanating from the Speaker or a member or a Minister.

Banter, biting sarcasm and good humour were permitted freely in the Central Assembly and were taken by the members in their stride as in the Commons. (Many in India may be interested to learn that a Speaker in Britain once held that "bastard", a term used by one member against another, was not unparliamentary as it was also used as an expression of endearment!) Once Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a great parliamentarian, quipped in the Central Assembly that half the House consisted of fools. When a member from the Treasury benches protested, Mr Jinnah promptly retorted: "All right, half the House does not consist of fools!" The House broke into laughter and all was forgotten in good fun. Much of this spirit has alas gone out of Parliament and many State Assemblies. Even good-humoured thrusts have on occasions triggered off trouble. In Madhya Pradesh, an MLA once said he was glad to get a statement from the horse's mouth. But the expression horse's mouth was expunged by the Speaker following a protest that the Minister had been called a horse!

Following independence, Nehru, together with Mavalankar, armed the Speaker with certain extraordinary powers to enable him to guide the people's representatives and the House effectively in its formative years. (No one was sure about the quality of MPs which a poll on the basis of adult franchise would throw up.) Among other things, specific provision was made for expunction of words from the proceedings of the House in the Rules of Procedure. The word unparliamentary was spelt out in Rule 380 relating to expunction for the benefit of new entrants to Parliament as "defamatory or indecent or undignified." Nevertheless, Mavalankar, as free India's first Speaker, took great care not to act on his own and interpret matters subjectively. He seldom acted suo moto and was clear that as the Speaker he was there to regulate the proceedings of the House, not to order them. Consequently, he gave a ruling on expunction of words only if an objection was raised. Further, only words were expunged, not whole sentences, paragraphs and more. Rule 380 speaks only in terms of unparliamentary words.

Mavalankar was equally clear about certain other fundamentals in accordance with the healthy tradition of the Commons. He was of the firm opinion that members using unparliamentary expressions must be duly punished or made to make amends. He would, therefore, ask the member to withdraw objectionable words. Since everything went on record and even got published in the Press, the withdrawal amounted to punishment. If the member refused to do so, Mavalankar would direct the member to withdraw from the House for the day. In case the member still refused to carry out the direction, Mavalankar would name him for disregarding the authority of the Chair. This would be followed up by a motion for the suspension of the member from the service of the House and the question out forthwith. In all this, Mavalankar happily received the full support of Nehru who functioned not only as Prime Minister but as the Leader of the House, rising above petty political considerations and helping build sound conventions. Mere expunction was seen as no punishment at all.

Subsequent Speakers, beginning with Mr Annanthasaynam Ayyangar, did not unfortunately enforce their authority and soon opted for the line of least resistance. The background of Rule 380 was ignored and increasing resort taken to suo moto expunctions. In the bargain, the MP guilty of using unparliamentary words went scot free and only the public at large was impliedly punished in view of the absence of any record of withdrawal or, say, of suspension. (The people outside Parliament have as much a right to know how their representatives are conducting themselves as those seated in the House -- a principle which is enshrined in the Feroze Gandhi Act ensuring full freedom to the Press to report the proceedings of Parliament without attracting the law of defamation and its like. Mr Sanjiva Reddy, as the Speaker, enforced the Chair's authority and largely ended the laxity introduced by Mr Hukum Singh. But matters went out of control once again when Mr G.S. Dhillon took over as the Speaker. He was the first Speaker to direct that nothing that was being stated by members at a given time without the Chair's permission would go on record.

The Giani's gaffe has proved a blessing in disguise even if it has led to an absurdity unrivalled in the annals of any Parliament: the Giani is now on record having withdrawn certain remarks which are themselves not on record! The Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, has done well to invite the Opposition leaders to discuss the question of expunctions and hammer out agreed ground rules. True, members in the Lok Sabha do occasionally create situations which make things difficult, even impossible, for the Speaker. But the Speaker's inclination to order expunctions at will is no answer to the problem. On the other hand, it is introducing a new and dangerous dimension to the office of the Speaker. Slowly but surely, the Speaker is emerging as a third force -- an independent entity superior to both the Government and the Opposition. The Speaker, no doubt, represents the House. But, as I stated earlier, he is the servant of the House, not its master. The expunction issue needs to be resolved at the earliest and the people restored their inalienable right to know and be fully informed. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)