New Delhi, 7 January 2003

Summon Attorney General

CAN PARLIAMENT BE BYPASSED

By Poonam I. Kaushish

New Year. New Hope.  Colourful banners streaked the labyrinth called the Government of India.  Specially after the much-hyped Right to Information Bill became a reality. If one looked forward to transparency.  Sprinkled with some honesty, no matter how minute, in the normally obfuscate administration, it was best to forget it.  Tall promises and even taller claims, notwithstanding.  The GOI continues to be as dense as the heavy fog which has embraced northern India in a bear hug, which delayed the PM’s return from Goa by three hours.  Indeed, it must have been a wise man who stated that a leopard never changes its spots!

Just see how the powers that-be poured cold water on the janta’s expectations, businessmen’s glee and journalists’ voyeuristic delight.  Accosted with the demand to make public its “transparent (sic) disinvestments policy,” specially in the Petroleum sector, the GOI went scurrying for cover.

The eagerly-awaited hiving off of oil majors, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Ltd. (BPL) was once again put on the back-burner.  The reason?  “We are awaiting the Attorney General’s opinion” said Disinvestments Minister Arun Shourie.  On two scores.  Could the two profitable oil giants be sold by an executive decision or would their sale require to be first cleared by Parliament, which had brought them into existence by Acts of Parliament.  Remember, both Esso and Caltex first and Burmah Shell subsequently were nationalized in 1974 and 1976 by the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.  To be re-christened by Parliament as BPL and HPCL.

However, what was left unsaid was more important than what Shourie cared to state.  Would the Government make public in full the opinion of the country’s first law officer on a crucial matter involving Parliament and the Executive?  Certainly not.  Making available only as much of information as would fit into its scheme of things. Conveniently brushing under the carpet the fact that the Attorney General, who is an independent statutory authority, is expected  in every sense of the Constitutional term to express himself forthrightly without fear or favour.

Not only does he give his opinion to the Government on file.  But he also has the right to address and thereby make himself available to the MPs to clarify his advice or interpretation of the Constitution in regard to a particular matter.  The important thing to note is that by coming to Parliament, he leaves no scope for any doubt or wrong interpretation or for any false claim by the Government. After all, Parliament represents the people and is ultimately answerable as the sovereign watchdog of the national interest. 

Sadly, in this raging controversy this crucial aspect of the Attorney Generals’ role and powers has not got the attention it deserves from our Right Honourables.  Who, today, seem to have little knowledge or interest about the functioning of the sovereign Parliament and even  less about the Constitution.  Specially the Opposition which is not as vigilant, as it ought to be, leaving the field wide open for the Government to ride rough shod over healthy conventions and do as it pleases.  Good or bad for the country, does not seem to matter.  Distressingly Parliament today has been largely reduced to being sovereign only in name.

For starters, are our Right Honourables, including those who adorn the front benches, aware that Article 88 of the Constitution confers on the Attorney General the same rights as a Minister to speak in Parliament.  Article 88 states:  “Every Minister and the Attorney-General, of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but shall not by virtue of this Article be entitled to vote.”

In other words, the AG’s right to speak confers on him the suo moto right to address Parliament and give his opinion directly (and transparently) to members. Our Constitution makers obviously took a leaf from the Westminster model.  In the UK, the Attorney General is the Chief Law Officer of the Crown and the Chief Legal Adviser to the Houses of Parliament.  Usually he is a member of Parliament and invariably a member of the Cabinet.

However, the fathers of India’s Constitution chose to depart from the English model in divorcing the office of the AG from the Government but retained the presence of the AG  in Parliament to give it his independent opinion and advice in person.  It was felt that by making the AG’s office independent he would be enabled to render his honest advice to Parliament, uninfluenced by political considerations.  Also a non-political AG could advise not only the Government but various other departments without coming into conflict with either.

Significantly, it was also felt that the absence of the AG from Parliament, would be to the disadvantage of MPs and indeed, of the country.  It would bar the Attorney-General from placing his candid opinion or point of view before either House when some matter under his charge was before the House and through it the country.

So far so good.  Surprisingly, however, no AG has till date in free India exercised his suo moto right to speak.  Perhaps other considerations have out-weighed his Constitutional obligations.  In practice, successive AG’s have gone to Parliament only at the request of the Government on a motion passed by the House. Or in response to a request by the Speaker if he wishes to hear him on any matter before the House, to give his opinion on the Constitutionality of a Bill or to give a legal interpretation. However, the Speaker does not seek the advice of the AG with regard to the vires of a Bill; it has been left to the Government, to bring in the AG whenever its wants to.

According to Kaul and Shakdher, members may give notice of motion asking the Attorney-General to be present in the House in connection with a certain Bill or business before the House.  Such notices are duly admitted and it is for the House to take a decision thereon.  Where the opinion of the AG has been circulated to the members in advance of his taking part in the proceedings, members may give advance notice of questions which they wish to ask of him and the same may be forwarded to the AG and the concerned Minister.  When taking part in the proceedings of the House, the AG cannot be cross-examined on the views expressed by him.  However, members may be permitted to ask a few questions to seek clarification on some points.  No discussion is permissible on the statement made by the AG in the House.

On behalf of the Speaker, references have also been made to the AG with a view to seeking his advice on procedural matters or constitutional provisions.  Such references are made direct and the AG gives his opinion direct.  The Speaker is not bound to follow that opinion but he takes it into consideration before arriving at his decision.

The AG has come to the Lok Sabha to give his opinion on as many as ten occasions – four times each in the 1950s and the 60s and once each in the 80s and 90s.  Among the famous cases for which he was called in to give his advice were the Mudgal and Bofors cases.

In 1957, the AG was directed by the Speaker to open the proceedings in the Mudgal Case (Committee on the Conduct of a Member 1951) and be present in the course of inquiry. In 1988 the AG addressed the Joint Committee to probe the Bofors Contract and clarified important legal issues, involved in the enquiry twice.  On 5 May 1988 when the Minister of Defence, during his reply to the discussion on the JPC Report on the Bofors contract, referred to the opinion of the AG, some members rose on points of order, to demand that the AG be summoned to come to the House to clarify the position.

The Speaker thereupon ruled that members could give notice of a motion asking the AG to be present in the House in connection with a Bill or other business before the House and if such motion was admitted the House could take a decision thereon.  Notices received subsequently were disallowed as discussion on the JPC Report had already concluded. The Bofors controversy continues to date.

What now? It is high time the Government came transparently clean on the disinvestments of the oil giants.  It is just not enough for the Government to secure the opinion of the AG on a file. The Opposition must, therefore, demand and insist that the AG comes before the Lok Sabha and expresses himself on the controversial issue posed by  Parliament: Can the HPCL and BPL be disinvested by an executive order or does it require the clearance of Parliament. It must then seek such clarifications as are deemed necessary.  Finally, it must ensure that India’s sovereign Parliament is not bypassed by the Executive. The basic structure of our Constitution is at stake. -- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 23 September 2003

 Bypassing Parliament

LID OFF MURKY MANOEUVRES

By Poonam I Kaushish

The BJP-led NDA Government at the Centre fell flat on its face Tuesday last. It has none to blame but itself for the sharp rap it earned from the Supreme Court. For bypassing Parliament by unilaterally deciding to disinvest in two blue chip oil companies, ignoring legal requirements. Creating yet another sticky mess.

As I watch the powers-that-be squirm over their monumental Constitutional blunder, my thoughts go back to my weekly Political Diary of 7 January entitled: Summon Attorney General, Can Parliament Be Bypassed? I had then stated: “Can the HPCL and BPCL be disinvested by an executive order or does it require the clearance of Parliament.  It must seek such clarifications as are deemed necessary.  Finally, it must ensure that India’s sovereign Parliament is not bypassed by the Executive.  The basic structure of our Constitution is at stake.”

The column was dismissed as inconsequential and the ranting of a wet blanket.  Today the tables are turned. I sit back and preen: I told you so.  Don’t misread, the issue is not disinvestment of public sector understandings, nor is it of selling the family silver to buy groceries in the garb of economic reforms.  But a more serious and pertinent point which has put a big question mark on our fledgling democracy. Namely the Government’s brazen and blatant attempt to derail Parliament.  Forgetting that the temple of democracy is the bedrock of our nation State. It represents the people and is ultimately answerable as the sovereign watchdog of the national interest. Constitutionally, the Executive is responsible to Parliament. Nothing less, nothing more.

For reasons best known to it, the NDA Government chose to ignore this basic premise. Instead of being transparent in its disinvestment policy it went out of its way to obfuscate the issue. Perhaps it believed in its infallibility as it set out on a suicidal course by turning the Constitution on its head. Reminding one of what Hitler, the enfant terrible of World War II, reduced Germany to. History tells us that the Constitution of the then Weimar Republic was hailed as the most democratic in the world. However, showing little respect for the written word Hitler made it worthless. He misinterpreted and subverted the Statute to become a dictator. The moot point is: Are our leaders set on a similar course? Are they out to destroy Parliament?

Its actions smack of it. The Supreme Court is certainly not pleased. A two-member Bench comprising Justices S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur put on hold disinvestment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL), asking the Government to obtain Parliamentary approval for the sale of the Government’s stake in the two companies. Citing Section 7 of the Esso (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act 1974, the Supreme Court told the Government that there was no way it could sell BPCL and HPCL without “appropriately amending” this provision. 

Section 7 states that the Centre can only transfer acquired oil companies to Government companies meaning in which the Government has at least a 51 per cent stake.  It was under this provision that the Centre transferred the assets of the multinational oil companies (Caltex, Esso and Burmah Shell) to HPCL and BPCL, formed then under the Companies Act, in 1976.  The Court further clarified that its verdict was not a reflection on the disinvestment policy, but was limited to the Centre’s powers to disinvest without repealing or amending the laws concerned. Plainly put, the Centre had transgressed on Parliament’s right to legislate   

Predictably, the Government is busy covering its tracks even as its spin doctors go about clouding the issue. Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie admitted that the judgment had made the entire process of disinvestment “infinitely more complex”. Questioning the ruling of the Bench, Shourie asserted that the ruling for prior Parliamentary approval would reopen the disinvestment process in Government companies since 1991. Interestingly, the Minister cited the case of Maruti Udyog’s privatisation which too was formed by an Act of Parliament. Was he suggesting that the Court should have done the same vis-à-vis HPCL and BPCL. Do two wrongs make a right? Clearly the Minister’s statement is misleading. Luckily for the Minister, the Maruti issue was not raised in the Court unlike in the case of the oil majors where the Oil Sector Officers Association and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation petitioned the Court.

Senior NDA leaders hold the Attorney General, Soli Sorabjee, responsible for the egg on its face. Recall the Government had gone ahead with the sale after Sorabjee had advised that an executive decision would suffice and there was no need to get Parliament’s approval. But the man in the eye of the storm is brazen in his response to the Apex Court’s decision. Said he: “Before giving my opinion I had examined the provisions of the Act…..had gone through other acts and concluded there was no need for prior approval….the Supreme Court has taken the view focusing on the preamble of the Act.” Arguably, since the purpose was in the preamble and not in the Act, the Act itself made it clear that the assets of these acquired companies will vest in the Central Government or “Government Company”.

Sorabjee seems to forget that as the “constitutional conscience of the nation” he is expected to take into account not just legal issues, but also the larger issues of the Executive’s accountability to Parliament. An Attorney General’s opinion can never override democracy. Not only that. As the nation’s first law officer, not only does he give his opinion on file but enjoys the same rights as a Minister to speak in Parliament, even make a suo moto statement. Article 88 is explicit. Sorabjee should have exercised his right to address at least the Lok Sabha to clarify his advice or interpretation on this crucial matter. Clearly, it was upto him to leave no scope for any doubt or wrong interpretation or any false claim by the Government.

Compounding his mistake, Sorabjee added: “No human being can claim infallibility, neither a lawyer nor a judge, when it comes to the statutes”. True nobody is infallible, precisely the reason why he should have taken the nation into confidence. The least one expected was some humility. Instead, crass and frivolous incidentals are touted as justification. The judges spent only an hour on the case of far-reaching importance. What has the quantum of time spent to do with the quality of judgment?  

Sadly, the Opposition, which is now going to town by using the issue as electoral fodder, is equally to blame. Why did it not demand that the Attorney General be summoned before Parliament? Today to assert that the Government exercised powers that it did not possess is a classical example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. It has failed in its duty to keep the Government on its toes, leaving the field wide open for the Government to ride rough shod over healthy conventions and do as it pleases. Good or bad does not seem to matter. Distressingly, our Right Honourables seem to have little knowledge or interest in the functioning of Parliament and even less about the Constitution. Thus Parliament has been largely reduced to being sovereign only in name.

What next? It is high time the Government came transparently clean on the disinvestment of the oil giants. It is simply not enough for the Government to secure the opinion of the AG merely on a file. It cannot do what it likes without engaging Parliament. The Opposition must demand and insist that the AG comes before Parliament and not only makes a clean breast of it all but is also available to the MPs for clarifications. Just as the judgment has taken the lid off the murky under-dealings in the corridors of power. It has opened the eyes of the people and exposed the way they treat Parliament, aptly described by Nehru as the high temple of democracy. Contempt not credibility has become its swan song. How long will we allow our leaders to play ducks and drakes with Parliament and, indeed, with democracy itself! ------INFA

 (Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 21 May 2002

Time To Disband

SHED TEARS FOR PARLIAMENT

By Poonam I. Kaushish

Tunde ke Kebab and Gilafi Kulcha of Lucknow, Tandoori Jheenga and Amritsari machchi, Hyderabadi Dam ki Biryani, Bhunna Paneer, Natun Gurhey Rosogulley of Kolkata and Dandiwale Kulfi of Delhi.  Some items from a 14-page menu in red and gold colour to tickle the taste buds as seldom before.  A feast worthy of Kings? Or, the banquet of a crorepati? A big ‘no’.  This was the spread for our jan sevak Parliamentarians. And why not? After all, our netagan today are no less than the erstwhile Rajas and Maharajas, if not one better.

The occasion was to celebrate Parliament’s golden jubilee at the spanking new Library Wing on the evening of May 13 last. If one was looking forward to some introspection, a little bit of soul searching, of  how the legacy of our great leaders is today replete with criminals, scams and systems failure, one was sadly mistaken. True, there were a plethora of syrupy speeches, by Prime Minister Vajpayee, Leader of the Opposition Sonia Gandhi, Lok Sabha Speaker and some others. All called for unity and urged higher morals in public life. (sic)  But this solemn occasion will be remembered mostly only for the grand feast that followed!

If this is unpalatable, worse follows. Only around 200 of the 745 MPs showed up! The President of India, who constitutes our Parliament alongwith the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha was greatly missed. Instead of being a national celebration of the people, the function bore no more than the “stamp” of the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Pramod Mahajan.  More, Vajpayee, Sonia and few others ate their meal on tables laid out in the air-conditioned environs of the banquet hall. Unlike Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv who   would have surely joined the hoi-polloi – the MPs queuing up for the delicacies on the lawns. Exposing how “caste ridden”, and ego-centric our rulers have become.

Indeed, Parliament has changed greatly since the Nehru era. The first Prime Minister’s respect for Parliament as an institution was as deep-rooted as his faith in the democratic process. Parliament symbolized for him the power of the people and he was always zealous in guarding its dignity. In distressing contrast to the approach and outlook of many among the powers that- be at present, as well as during the past three decades.

Today, the voice of the masses has turned into an invoice for themselves – money, power and kursi. The sound and fury largely generated for self gain has replaced law making. Mockery is made of established conventions and procedures. Thus, Parliament has declined sadly and come to mean less and less in national governance. Remaining sovereign only in name. Spotlighting the basic contempt that our netagan have for the high temple of democracy.

The sceptics who harbour any doubts had only to witness the just-concluded budget session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha. Wherein the sanctum sanctorum of India’s democracy was defiled to zero. Indeed, this  session will go down in Parliament’s “notorious” history as having been for Gujarat, Gujarat and more Gujarat. Shockingly, for the first time in India’s parliamentary history, the Lok Sabha had to be adjourned for lack of quorum when the Finance Bill was to be discussed and passed. Never mind that debate and discussion of the budget and of the proposal taxes is the basic requirement of any democracy.

Not just that.  Earlier, out of the three Ministries earmarked for the discussion of their demands for grants – Agriculture, External Affairs and Defence, only the first was given just a quick glance. The other two, like all others, were merrily guillotined. The Railway Budget was passed in a record five minutes. Arguably, why should our pampered Hon’bles lose their sleep? After all, it is only the common man who has to bear the brunt of rising prices and inflation. Not those who thrive on subsidies and  deficits. Why bother about the mundane business of the House?

The BJP heaved a sigh of relief  at the end of the session even as it tom tommed its intentions. The Opposition glowed in the aftermath of muscle-flexing. The Congress felt outwitted and accused the BJP of turning Parliament into an arena to massage its much bruised ego. Reflecting the abysmal depths to which politics has sunk in our country. All that transpired -- blockades, lung-power and unabashed opportunism –- will be remembered as the lowest denominator in  our Parliamentary democracy, when national interests were mindlessly sacrificed at the alter of power. Thus inflicting a great damage on democracy.

The figures speak for themselves. Parliament is spending less and less time on lawmaking. The first Lok Sabha spent 49.80 per cent of its time on enacting legislation. This came down sharply to 17.38 per cent for the Tenth Lok Sabha. The actual time spent is certain to be markedly less. The maximum time was spent on “other matters” or unlisted issues. Compare this to a mere four per cent by the first Lok Sabha. The tragedy becomes stark when one realizes that every minute lost in Parliament costs Rs 2 lakhs.

Importantly, the Question Hour, more than any other time, serves as a barometer of governmental performance at the macro level and a Minister’s effectiveness at the micro level. It provides for daily and continuing accountability of Government to Parliament. Wherein the Government through its Ministers is forced to answer questions. It is thus the most powerful weapon available to the Opposition to keep the Government on a tight leash. However, our MPs treat this hour very casually. Inconvenient questions are avoided and, on occasions, obliging questioners persuaded to stay away. Moreover, the answers leave much to be desired. They are wishy washy and evasive. In fact, a sheer waste of time, often justifying angry clashes.

During G.V.  Mavalankar’s  tenure as the  Lok Sabha’s first Speaker, some 12 questions   or more were taken up in sixty minutes. Shockingly,  only two or three questions are  taken up these days. At times a question goes on and on for some  40 minutes.  More often than not a question gets converted in to a short notice discussion or a no-day—yet-named motion. Nehru  made it a point to be present every day during the Question Hour. It provided him  an excellent feedback about  his Ministers and the state  of  the nation. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Vajpayee prefers to be laid back, turning up only on Wednesday, when his questions are listed.

From question-time onwards, it’s a steady down hill. Zero Hour has been converted into a glorified Rule 377, wherein MPs can raise  issues without the Government being obliged to reply. More often MPs use this Hour to score brownie points  and catch the headlines.  Last week, the power and water crisis stalking the country was drowned in the hullabaloo over BJP’s Gujarat and Ayodhya versus the 1984 Sikh killing during the Congress regime. The less said about the attendance during the afternoons  the better. There are barely two score MPs present at any time. Most among them sit in the House for their  post-lunch siesta. [ A time-honoured convention of the House of Commons permits members to sleep so long as they do not snore and disturb!]

On the last day of the session when  the House discussed the barbaric  Kalucha killings, only about 35 MPs were present in the  House during  the first two hours after a curtailed  lunch break. For more than an hour none of the top four – Vajpayee, Advani, Jaswant Singh or George Fernandes were present! In sharp contrast, J&K’s Chief Minister, Farooq Abdullah, sat glued to his seat in the Distinguished visitor’s Gallery throughout the debate.

Clearly, it is time to give serious thought to rectifying the flaws in our system and urgently overhauling it. Rules have to be drastically changed to put Parliament back on the rails and ensure that none can hold the two Houses to ransom. First and foremost, we have to draw a lakshman rekha. Are  we for democracy as a civilized form of Government or are we   for what the former President Giri once described as a “democracy” of devils and fixers. How long are we going to mortage our conscience to unabashed gimmickry and goondaism? How long are we going to allow myopic partisan politics to recklessly paralyse Parliament? Must we stand as mute spectators while Parliament gets vandalized by our jan sevaks.

The answer is a resounding no.  We cannot go on seeing the slow but sure destruction of Parliament. If the netagan are not willing to remedy matters, the public may feel constrained  to take the law into its own hands.  Either way, it is time for all to shed tears for India’s high temple of democracy. Enough is enough!—INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 14 May 2002

 India’s  Declining Parliament

NEW SPEAKER, NEW CHAPTER?

By Poonam I. Kaushish

Yesterday’s Masterji of Mumbai’s “Kohinoor Tutorials” is today’s Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Thus disclosed Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in lighter vein as he offered his bouquets to Manohar Joshi after the latter had been unanimously elected as the Speaker and escorted to his high seat. He said: “I have been told that at every bus stand in Mumbai there is a signboard of Kohinoor Tutorials. I wonder whether these institutions have opened according to the bus stops or whether the bus stops have opened according to the institutions!” 

The Lok Sabha is surely no bus stop.  But Mumbai’s Kohinoor has become synonymous today with the Kohinoor of India’s democracy: Parliament.  From the seat of tutorials to the throne of Vikramaditya, as Vajpayee put it,  is indeed a long way. However,  one hopes that this will inspire the tutorialist in Manohar Joshi to open a new chapter in Parliament well and truly. Specially in its golden jubilee year when Parliament has reached its nadir and its reputation is in shreds. Thus making the Speaker’s role more critical and challenging than ever before.

From all accounts, Joshi, a first timer in the Lok Sabha is a gentleman who brings with him an impressive record of 32 years of public service -- first as the creator of a chain of tutorial schools in Maharashtra, thereafter as a Municipal Corporator, Mayor, MLA, Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Minister of Maharashtra and, finally, as Union Cabinet Minister of Heavy Industries until his election as the Speaker.  No doubt, handling difficult students became his second nature.  But  the honourables MPs are an entirely different kettle of fish.

More so as the challenges that confront the nation have increased manifold. The country is today in the throes of increasing social and economic tensions. In addition, there are  forces within and without eager to destabilise  India and disrupt its unity and integrity. This calls for reasoned debate. Instead even small Opposition groups have prevented discussion by holding the House to ransom repeatedly. Not a few members have made it a habit of rushing into the well of the House. Where politically motivated bashing has become the order of the day and agenda a luxury to be taken up only when the lung power is exhausted. All spew sheer contempt on Parliament and its relevance and dignity.

We take great pride in calling ourselves the world’s largest democracy. Yet most of us forget that parliamentary democracy provides for a civilized form of government based on discussion, debate and consensus. Ruthless politics has taken over and discussions and debates have largely lost their meaning. Numbers alone matter and have become the sole criteria of success. Shockingly, for the first time in India’s Parliamentary history, the Lok Sabha  had to be adjourned last month for lack of quorum when the Finance Bill was due  to be passed.

In this milieu, the Speaker’s role has become all the more important and demanding.   Few in India, however, appreciate even today the key role of the Speaker without whom,  according to Erskine May, “the House has no Constitutional existence.” Jawaharlal Nehru repeatedly emphasised the importance of the office of the Speaker and laid emphasis on its prestige and authority. Said he in 1958: “The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that his should be an honoured position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality.”

Nehru as the leader of the House encouraged by his own conduct the Chair to be independent and impartial. Elders recall how Nehru once clashed with Speaker Mavalankar on the floor of the Lok Sabha when the latter disallowed him from making a second statement in one day in contravention of the rules. Nehru agitatedly argued: “But Mr Speaker Sir…..” However, he soon resumed his seat as the Speaker asserted: “Order, order. The Prime Minister will take his seat!” Incredible as it may seem in today’s India, Mavalankar once allowed an adjournment motion against Sardar Patel to discuss the escape of Mir Laik Ali, Prime Minister of Nizam’s Hyderabad from India.

Fortunately, Balasaheb Thackeray as Speaker Joshi’s mentor and as the leader of the Shiv Sena has acted wisely and urged the latter to function impartially and independently. This should enable and encourage the Speaker not only to abstain from active politics and inspire confidence in all sections of the House, as advocated by Mavalankar. It should also enable him to restore to Parliament its gravely lost relevance, vigour, vitality and dignity – and act in India’s best interest.

Above all, Speaker Joshi has to put Parliament back on the rails? True there is no magic remedy. The process has to be slow and long. Nevertheless, a meaningful beginning could be made if the new Speaker puts an end to brazen rowdyism. The Chair needs to ensure that the  House is not held to ransom through a ‘gang up’ of MPs determined to disrupt its smooth functioning. Any member crossing the Lakshman Rekha and rushing into the well of the House should automatically stand suspended for a week.  In fact, this measure was part of a code of conduct unanimously adopted during the tenure of late Speaker Balayogi. But it was never enforced.

More. To conduct the business of the House smoothly, there has to be stern discipline.  Debates have to be made more meaningful and focused through a strict time schedule. Today, time management has become a joke. Most Speakers have been much to indulgent, allowing senior party leaders to speak at will, way beyond their allotted time. Not a few leaders speak as though they are speaking in a public meeting or a political rally. Consequently, crucial legislative business meriting in-depth debate gets rushed through with only a cursory glance. There is no such thing as first, second and third readings of bills as during Parliament’s golden era under Nehru. 

Not only that. The demands for grants of various Ministries and Departments, running into lakhs of crores of rupees are voted without any discussion because time gets wasted on non-issues. No doubt the Speaker has to walk a tight rope. He has to ensure among other things that the Opposition has its say even as the Government has its way. However, he could easily take a leaf out of the book of the West to save time, wherein the microphone is switched off as soon as a  member finishes his allotted time. Winston Churchill once told his party MPs that ordinary members should endeavour to make only  one point in their speeches. It is the privilege of  Prime Ministers alone to make two points!    

Two other aspects need urgent attention of Speaker Joshi. First, he must firmly end the mindless and stupid practice of dispensing with the Question Hour to take up urgent political issues. The Question Hour is the private members’ hour. It is the hypen that links the Government to the Legislature and enables the members to put the Government in the dock and to hold it accountable. To dispense with the Questions is to oblige the Government and enable it to go scott free!

Second, the Committee System. It was introduced after much debate to enable Parliament to exercise more effective control over the Government through in-depth consideration of the demands for grants of various Ministries. Sadly, our netagan have so far made a mockery of the exercise. Today there are hardly any serious takers for the reports of the 17 Standing Committees. Worse, the MPs treat the “recess period” during the budget session as a holiday.

Additionally, the leader of the House, the leader of the Opposition and other group leaders need to extend to the Speaker their full cooperation in enforcing discipline. Each leader must actively take care of his flock. They must desist from surreptitiously asking their members to create pandemonium to their prevent their opponents from speaking.  Tumult and shouting is no substitute for reasoned discussion and debate.

Happily, Speaker Joshi has made it clear that he will firmly deal with indiscipline. In his first interaction with the media after assuming office, he noted in reply to a question how the Congress benches had prevented Defence Minister George Fernandes from speaking in the House time and again. Appropriately, he asserted that no member should ever be  prevented from having his say.   

In the final analysis, we can do no better than recall Churchill’s famous words spelling out his concept of democracy. Said he: “Democracy, I say, is not based on violence or terrorism, but on reason, on fair play, on freedom, on respecting the rights of other people.” Interestingly, Indira Gandhi echoed similar sentiments following the Emergency  when she 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.”

That faith and respect requires to be restored and built by the new Speaker through a new chapter. –INFA

(Copyright, India News &  Feature Alliance)