REWIND
New Delhi, 10 August
2023
CAN WE SAVE PARLIAMENT?
By Inder Jit
Parliament continues
to decline --- and so also public standards. Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha have touched a new low during the current session. Things went wrong in
the past. Practice and procedures were violated in the two Houses and rules
broken. One could, however, count upon the checks and balances provided in the
system to correct matters. The Speaker, representing the dignity and freedom of
the House, invariably asserted his authority to ensure smooth functioning of
the Lok Sabha. Likewise, the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha was expected to ensure
that the system, based on Government by consultation and debate, functioned
equally smoothly. The Leader of the House, who is expected to function as the
foremost champion of the rights of the House as a whole, set the tone by his
presence, commitment to the system, and timely intervention as during Nehru’s
time. All this has alas become an old story, causing anguish among veteran
parliamentarians. Said one ruefully: “Parliament is being destroyed, blow by
blow from within. No one seems to care.”
Nothing symbolizes the
slide down of Parliament and public standards more than three happenings during
the past five weeks or so. First, the Speaker, Mr. Bal Ram Jhakhar’s decision
on the spate of adjournment motions on the opening day of the Lok Sabha, which
united the Opposition as seldom before and eventually led to a walk out by
almost all the members. Second, the Morarji bombshell on the eve of the visit
of the Soviet President, Mr. Brezhnev, an issue to which I referred in an
earlier column in a different context. Third, the sensational and unprecedented
walk-out by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Hidayatullah, from the House
last week and his virtual threat to quit Vice Presidentship. The Vice President
is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha which, curiously, continues to be
confused with the House of Lords in Britain and is erroneously described as the
House of Elders or the Upper House. It is neither. The Rajya Sabha is the
Council of the States and represents the States in our federal polity, as is
clear from the basis of the election and the Constitution.
Who is to blame? The
Treasury benches, which enjoy an overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha, accuse
the Opposition and its “frustration, destructiveness and agitational approach”
for the rows and pandemoniums. The Opposition blames the Speaker and the
Treasury benches, especially the latter’s “arrogance of the brute majority” and
“contempt for the basic postulates of the parliamentary system.” The Speaker
and the Chairman, for their part, blame both the Opposition and the Treasury
benches, ignoring their own contribution towards the worsening malady. The
Press blames all the four. Some Parliamentary experts equally blame the Leaders
of the two Houses. Who seem either oblivious of their key role or prefer not to
be bothered. The truth, however, is that all the seven, including the Press,
must share responsibility for the decline. The Press may do not more than
report its proceedings. But it has over the years often encouraged rowdyism and
sensationalism at the zero hour and on other occasions by playing up those who
least deserve the headlines.
The parliamentary
system essentially provides for a continuous but peaceful and civilized
struggle for power. Both the Government and the Opposition have to play an
equally vital role, especially in a system in which the Government, as at
present, enjoys a majority in the Lok Sabha which bears no relation to the
popular will. (It needs to be remembered by the present ruling party that it
received no more than 43.6 per cent of the votes cast in the January poll. Further,
the popular support works out to less than 25 per cent of the total
electorate.) The Opposition is expected to spotlight the failures of the
Government, keep the Treasury benches on its toes in the best interest of the
common weal and offer an effective alternative. Churchill even encouraged the
Commons during World War II to highlight the weaknesses of his Government with
one exception, namely, sensitive issues relating to national security. He
wanted the MPs to take these up by all means with the Government, but
confidentially. Significantly, however, he promised to take the nation into
confidence in this regard once the war was over.
In fact, some
parliamentary experts even describe the recognition of the Opposition in
Britain as His or Her Majesty’s Opposition and provision of a salary and other
facilities for the Leader of the Opposition as “one of the great political
inventions of our times”. Explains a top expert: “This helped to move the
struggle for power from the streets into the Chamber and from violence to
peaceful means in accordance with the agreed rules of the game”. The Opposition
in India is, no doubt, divided. Parliament has, once again, only Opposition
groups. An Opposition party is required to have a minimum strength of 50
members. Nevertheless, the Opposition has its rights. On the very first day of
the session, it found itself barred from raising through adjournment motions
issues mainly agitating the nation, namely price rise and communal riots, when
the Speaker admitted an adjournment motion relating to a railway accident some
three weeks earlier. Under the rules, the House can take up only one
adjournment on any day.
The Opposition
unanimously pleaded for admission of its adjournment motions on price rise and
communal riots. Some members pointed out that the adjournment motion on the
railway accident had become infructuous: both the Railway Minister and the
Railway Board had changed. The mover of this motion even withdrew his notice in
writing. But to no avail. The Speaker stuck to his guns - and the Opposition
walked out. One looked in vain earlier for a Nehru to resolve the issue as the
Leader of the House. But Mrs Gandhi was not there: she came to the House only
for a few minutes to introduce the new Ministers. At one stage, Mr Jyotirmoy
Bosu pertinently enquired as to the timing of the receipt of the adjournment
motions. Curiously, however, the Speaker replied: “I am not supposed to divulge
anything or to explain anything.” His reply, according to experts, overlooked
two things. First, Parliament functions in the open, not secretly. The date and
timing of all notices received is duly recorded. Second, the system is based on
competition among MPs in securing priority --- who gets in his notice first.
Public standards?
Parliament and the country are still in the dark in regard to the truth about
the sensational disclosure by the former Prime Minister, Mr Desai, that he had
been instigated by a Soviet leader “to teach a lesson to Pakistan”. The
External Affairs Minister, Mr Narasimha Rao, no doubt, stated in Parliament
that there was “nothing whatsoever” in “all our records” to confirm what Mr
Desai was reported to have said “in regard to his conversation with President
Brezhnev”. But Mr Desai was referring to his talks with Mr Kosygin in New Delhi
in March 1979 and not, with Mr Brezhnev. Surprisingly, no one in Parliament,
not even MPs belonging to the Janata Party, have so far sought to get the
record straight, ignoring their responsibility to “Satyamev Jayate” which glows
in colour in a neon tube above the Speaker’s chair. Mr Desai still needs to be
contacted by the Government and an authoritative statement made by the Prime
Minister to put the matter beyond my doubt. The House owes this to itself --
and to posterity.
Finally, Mr
Hidayatullah and his walk out. The Chairman and the Speaker may have their own
complaints against the members. But the harsh fact is that much of the present
trouble stems mainly from non-observance of the rules and procedures -- and
lack of appreciation of the basic truth: violence to the rules of the game
breeds counter violence. “What”, asks an Opposition leader, “are we supposed to
do if our adjournment motions are repeatedly disallowed and questions not
answered adequately?” More and more MPs today complain of evasiveness on the
part of Ministers, virtually emasculating the question hour, which provides
Parliament with some control over the executive. Not a little trouble has
arisen from the feeling among the Opposition MPs that they are not getting
adequate “protection” from the chair in performing their duty. The row in the
Rajya Sabha erupted when Mr Dinesh Goswami complained that only three questions
had been taken up during the entire hour. Time was when the Rajya Sabha used to
complete its full list of twenty or more questions.
Time-honoured rules,
practices and traditions need to be firmly upheld and followed if Parliament is
to function effectively. The present trend of evolving ad hoc procedures
influenced by our feudal style and background requires to be curbed. Ordinary
questions are virtually becoming short-notice questions and calling attention
notices half-hour discussions and more. Adjournment motions are being treated
mainly as censure motions and generally disallowed. The zero hour, unheard of
during Nehru’s time, is increasingly reducing Parliament to zero. Even senior
MPs do not think twice before making defamatory statements. (Readers in India
may be interested to learn that the British Speaker 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!) Expunctions are
becoming the order of the day. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha expunged even
his own remarks during the session! A Speaker in Canada was once removed from
his office for expunging certain remarks on his own.
The Chair would do
well to remember the golden rule: to speak the least. (Mr N.K.P. Salve may have
exploded against “sermons” from the Chairman last week. But he and others have
been complaining about it informally for some time.) In fact, it was
almost touch and go when Mr Hidayatullah remarked the following on being
persuaded to return to the House last Wednesday: ”Mr Leader and honourable members
have never heard me speak. If I could speak in this House, I could create
pin-drop silence...I have been a very powerful debater in my time. If I were
sitting on the Bench, I could silence most of you by repartee, by sarcasm and
by correct facts. Unfortunately, I have never seen that kind of a thing in this
House. What happens is a wrangle, what happens is a desire to get your name
into the newspapers...”The recent incidents in
Parliament reflect a malady which afflicts the two Houses -- a malady which is
getting worse with each passing session. The two Houses are not functioning as
they should. Worse, the system is beginning to show signs of crumbling. The
problem today is not one of strengthening Parliament, as during the first two
decades. It is one of saving Parliament. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|