Rewind
New Delhi, 27 January 2022
Parliament Abdicates
Control Again
By Inderjit
(Released on 12 June
1990)
Parliament’s recently-concluded budget
session has not received the critical attention it deserves. Not many of our
people have cared to remember that they themselves are the masters and to ask:
Has the new Lok Sabha functioned well and carried out its responsibilities
honorably? Did it open a new chapter and arrest Parliament’s distressing
decline over the years? Many found hopes and expectations were raised by the
new Lok Sabha, notwithstanding its hung character. Sadly, these have not been
realized. In fact, if the truth be told, Parliament declined further during the
session. Neither the Government nor the Opposition benches covered themselves
with glory even though the last hour ironically saw both sides indulging in
mutual back-slapping for “a successful session”. True, the House voted the
budget and also four Constitution Amendment Bills during the long session. But
that by itself is far from enough. Infinitely more important is the basic
vigour and vitality of Parliament.
Parliamentary democracy, as we all know, is a
civilized form of government. It
provides for rule by discussion, debate and consensus. Some of us saw the
absence of a clear majority and the hung character of the new Lok Sabha as a
blessing in disguise. We remembered the havoc played with the House by the
brute majority enjoyed by the Rajiv Gandhi Government in the last Lok Sabha.
Time and again, the Congress-I Government rode rough-shod over the Opposition
ignoring one basic fact of life: it lacked a majority mandate even though it
enjoyed a massive majority. (Remember, the Congress-I got less than 50 per cent
of the total votes polled! Many, therefore expected the new House to function
with greater responsibility and revert to discussion and debate. However, this
did not happen. Instead of discussion and debate, we had a great deal of
dictation. The House was repeatedly held to ransom by leaders belonging to both
sides of the House asserting: “We shall not allow the House to proceed until
…..”)
In one sense, the Lok Sabha once again made a
sham of parliamentary democracy. Once again? Yes. The last budget session of
the last Lok Sabha made a mockery of the system. I said so on the floor of the
House in my maiden speech on the President’s Address. I told the House that I
had had the privilege of watching the Lok Sabha “from the Press Gallery above
for almost 35 years.” I was, therefore glad to get an opportunity “to tell how
I and friends up there felt about the conduct of the House…” I then went on to
add: “I am sorry to say that over the last two decades the system has come into
great disrepute and we have made a sham of democracy.” A former Congress-I
Minister, Mr.Janardhan Poojari, rose on a point of order to protest “No member,
Mr. Speaker, should use offensive expressions about the conduct or proceedings
of Parliament.” But the point of order was over-ruled by the Speaker once I
argued: “In the last budget session, the House voted more than Rs.54,000 crores
without any discussion. If this, Mr. Speaker, is not sham, what else is sham?”
The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Mr.
Upendra, stated on the last day: “We have transacted very momentous business in
this session, including passing the Budget and many Constitution (Amendment)
Bills. We discussed the demands of as many as nine Ministries, three times more
than what had done last year….” A few members seated behind Mr. Upendra
cheered. But there was no occasion for any applause. On the other hand, the
remark called for someone to interject “not enough not enough” or even cry out
“shame, shame”, considering Parliament’s abject abdication of its control over
the Treasury, namely the Government’s spending. There is no gainsaying that Mr.
Upendra worked hard and amiably in discharging his thorny task of running the
House on the basis of a consensus. Nevertheless, one fact stands out. In one
fell stroke of the guillotine, the House voted over Rs.39,000 crores and of the
people’s money relating to the expenditure of 29 Ministries and Departments
from the Consolidated Fund of India without any discussion!
Parliament’s greatest strength and utility
lies in its power over the treasury. The first major battle of democracy was
fought in Britain on the question of the right of a King to impose taxes on his
subjects at will. The people won at the end of a long and hard struggle and the
world saw the birth of a fundamental canon of democracy: no taxation without
representation.” (The American War of Independence was also sparked off by the
same basic issue.) The principle is strictly enforced in all democracies. In
fact, Britain and other democracies have over the past two decades taken
several initiatives to strengthen Parliament’s control over the purse. The
House of Commons has had for the past ten years 14 Standing Committees in
addition to 11 earlier Committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, to
exercise greater Parliamentary control over the Treasury and the government as
a whole. In sharp contrast, our Parliament’s control over the national budget
has continued to slip year by year.
Mr. Upendra can certainly plead: “We wanted
all the Ministries discussed. But the main Opposition prevented us from doing
so, blocking proceedings time and again.”The Congress-I, no doubt, stalled
business repeatedly as part of its “government bashing”, a phrase Mr. Rajiv
Gandhi and his whiz kids enjoy using. But the ruling party could still do two
things to mend matters in the short term and over the long haul. The Janata
Dal, together with their supporters,the BJP and the Left Front, could
straightway undertake (prior to the monsoon session) what Nehru was prepared to
do, agree to a discussion on the guillotined Ministries by ad hoc committees on
the basis of their annual reports presented to Parliament. Mr. Upendra and his
party could, thereafter, provide for proper Budget Committees for the future.
The ruling party and its friends (popularly called “crutches” by the Congress-I
MPs) must understand that Parliament has not only the right but a bounden duty
to see that the public money is spent well and not wasted.
Regrettably, the record of the Janata Dal in
regard to the introduction of the Committee System is rather disappointing,nay
dismal. The Rajiv Gandhi regime took a historic step last year towards adoption
of the Committee System. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business were
amended to provide for the formation of three Standing Subject Committees --- a
Committee on Agriculture,another on Science and Technology and a third on
Environment and Forests --- to ensure greater control over their functioning
and spending. Curiously, however, there is no sign yet of any of the three
committees, prompting some veterans to ask: Is the Government having second
thoughts? Not only that. On March 20 last, the Rules Committee recommended the
appointment of seven more Standing Subject Committees, including those on
Finance and Planning, Defence and External Affairs, Home Affairs,Commerce and
Industry.But there is no movement on this overdue recommendation either to the chagrin
of many of us.
The Speaker, Mr. Rabi Ray, introduced during
the session innovation for regulating the zero hour. Members were allowed (with
advance notice) to make the points on which they felt greatly agitated. The
innovation deserves to be welcomed, though it took away from the zero hour much
of its fun, excitement and heat. It puts into practice another long forgotten
parliamentary canon: the Opposition must have its say, even as the Government
has its way. But the Speaker, a liberal socialist, will have to take care that
the zero hour does not become unduly long. Towards the end, it tended to take
more than an hour and a half each day, injecting uncertainty in regard to the
consideration of official business and eagerly-awaited ministerial statements.
Perhaps, the zero hour could be strictly limited to a maximum of one hour and
only such issues allowed to be raised as are permissible under the rules. In
fact, it is time to consider allotting to the Opposition parties some specific
number of hours each week for raising suo moto such issues as they desire.
One question remains: Can the decline of
Parliament be halted and, indeed, reversed? Personally, I feel this should be
possible considering the anxiety of the Speaker, Mr. Ray, and the Deputy
Speaker, Mr. Shivraj Patil, who earned well-deserved kudos from all sides for
his remarkably good handling of the House, to nurse Parliament back to robust
health. Both, for instance, strongly favour the Committee system and are eager
to give all sections of the House, including smaller groups and independents,
an opportunity to make the Lok Sabha proceedings more representative of the
nation. Much in regard to the final outcome will depend upon Mr. V.P. Singh,
who is not only the Prime Minister but also the leader of the House, and the
leader of the Opposition, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. Sadly, the performance of both left
great deal to be desired. In the final analysis, the Lok Sabha’s functioning
cries out for overdue heart-searching and urgent reform. Its decline (and even
more so of the Rajya Sabha) has continued unchecked for much too long. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|