POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 8 August 2009

Parliament’s Budget Session

EGG ON UPA-II GOVT FACE

By Poonam I Kaushish

It was billed as the icing on the cake post a resounding electoral victory. Instead it ended with egg on its face. That sums up the UPA Government II tryst with an eventful month long-Budget session of Parliament. Wherein a gloating Opposition couldn’t believe their eyes with the ease with which they had creamed and cake-walked over the Treasury Benches!

True, the session began on a dull note. Most MPs expected it to, given the Congress’s triumph still fresh in their minds and the numerical muscle it enjoyed.  The budget would be passed without any hiccup, and the rest would be ‘business as usual,’ notwithstanding the odd tu-tu-mein-mein part of Parliamentary discourse. Besides, there was nothing ‘earth-shaking’ or scandalous to bring the Lok Sabha to a standstill.

How wrong one was. Towards the middle, the Treasury Benches all of a sudden seemed to be afflicted by the deadly foot-in-the-mouth disease peppered with loads of apathy riding the crest of attitude and arrogance. From one faux paux to another, it was a steady downhill thereafter. Clearly, the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing. Foreign policy goof-ups, lack of coordination, absenteeism, poor floor management et al.

It all started with the Indo-Pak infamous joint statement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his counterpart Gilani in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Which delinked terror from holding a composite dialogue and the unilateral inclusion of Baluchistan. Without once again going into the merits, suffice to say a shell-shocked nation and polity retaliated and how! Both within the Party and Government and without.

With his Congress Party publicly demonstrating its uneasiness and stiff opposition with the formulations in the statement by refusing to endorse it, Singh was left with no option but to eat his Sharm-el-Sheikh words and re-bracket dialogue with Pakistan with action against terror. But the matter did not end there.

For the first time Congress President Sonia Gandhi made plain that she was not in sync with Singh during her address to the Congress Parliamentary Party. Not only did she refrain from mentioning the Sharm-el-Sheikh statement, instead limiting her address to the “PM’s statement in Parliament.” But underscored that dialogue was contingent upon action against terror. More. By refusing to mention Baluchistan she highlighted that it was a big blunder. Making plain who the boss was she left none in doubt that the PM did not have the elbow room to take initiatives that were not in line with the Party’s thinking.

Not only that. The UPA II tied itself into knots with the Foreign Minister Krishna shooting his mouth off to a newspaper on the mastermind behind the Mumbai terror attack, Jamaat-ud-Dawa Chief Hafiz Saeed’s arrest and gifted another opportunity to the Opposition to corner it. First Krishna fumbled then said: “All talks would be futile till Islamabad gives positive signs of tackling terror.," Chorused Leader of Opposition Advani, the two Yadav satraps — Mulayam and Lalu, does the Government still stand by the joint statement formulations, given that  Krishna has contradicted his PM's ‘delinking composite dialogue with terrorism' formulation."

Matters became complicated for the Government as none of the senior ministers were present in the House to articulate its position following an impromptu short discussion on the subject. Asserted leader after leader, “We want to know whether the PM agrees with Krishna or whether the latter has over-ruled him.” Amid slogans like “Pradhan Mantri Jawab do” the Lok Sabha plunged into pandemonium as the Speaker sought to move to another subject.

Further, in its enthusiasm to meet the 100-day deadline, the Treasury Benches faced acute embarrassment when it was forced to withdraw two Bills for consideration in a span of three days. One, the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill, 2009, in the Rajya Sabha and the Rubber (Amendment) Bill, 2009. If the first was thanks to shoddy drafting, incomplete spadework, stiff Opposition resistance and the prospect of the Bill falling through at the introduction stage itself, the second due to inexcusable absence of the concerned Ministers.

The MPs’ ire was over Clause 6 of the Judges Bill which seeks to shield judicial officers from going public with the details of their assets and liabilities, whereas MLAs, MLCs or MPs have to comply as per the Supreme Court’s directions to the Election Commission. What applies to all public functionaries should be applicable to judicial officers too, asserted the Opposition and some Congress MPs. There can’t be different yardsticks — one for politicians and another for judges. Leaving a suitably chastised Law Minister Moily to suffer the humiliation of having to withdraw the Bill.

Even more scandalously was the goof-up during the introduction of the Rubber (Amendment) Bill by the Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan instead of Commerce Minister Anand Sharma or his junior Jyotiraditya Scindia who were both out of the country. Put it down to either a case of lack of co-ordination between the two Ministries, arrogance and lack of propriety for Parliamentary procedures or a plain case of a laid-back UPA underestimating the Opposition. No matter Ministers being out during Parliament sessions was a strict no-no during Nehru’s era.

Worse, not only Ministers the Congress too was plagued by the problem of absenteeism during this session. Even reading the riot act by Sonia Gandhi didn’t help to push up attendance of Congress MPs in Parliament. Think. For the landmark Right to Free and Compulsory Education Bill only 54 MPs (mostly from the Opposition) were present in the House when it was put to vote, including the Minister Kapil Sibal. Barely, scrapping the quorum rule wherein 10% of the total strength of the House has to be present at all times. On the penultimate day also during a debate on spiraling prices just two Ministers --- Parliamentary Affairs Minister Bansal and his Deputy were present.

Raising a moot point. Are our Right Honourables really serious about Parliament? And the legislative responsibilities that rests on their shoulders. How seriously do are MPs take their voting records? It is not enough to get elected alone, our netagan have to ensure attendance, participation in debates, ask questions, voting records etc In fact, the people should get a report card of their jan sevaks at the next poll to gauge whether they are truly functioning as their representatives.

Besides, the session bore the hallmark of lack of homework, taking the House for granted and unsatisfactory responses on issues by Ministers. Two cases in point. Rural Development Minister CP Joshi and his colleague for Mines BK Handique. On 21 July a fumbling and mumbling Mines Minister was the subject of much derision when he repeatedly failed to answer questions relating to his Ministry.

Handique’s lack of preparedness was surpassed by Joshi’s lack of Parliamentary decorum. The Minister’s taunt that the BJP-ruled Chhatttisgarh didn’t have the “himmat” to pay the minimum NREG wage saw the Opposition up in arms for his lack of respect for the country’s federal character. Not only had he to eat his words but the Finance Minister had to apologies on his behalf.

Compounding this was the ambiguous stand by UPA II on the setting up of the Bundelkhand Development Authority. One day it was gung-ho, the next when faced with Opposition protests and adjournment of both Houses for the Government’s disregard for the county’s federal character, it swiftly abandoned it. Lack of homework?

Another adjournment cause célèbre was Samajwadi’s Mulayam shocking accusations of "corruption" against Petroleum Minister Murli Deora for "favour worth Rs.15,000 crore" to Mukesh Ambani over the KG Basin gas supplies row with his younger brother. “This is the Minister who makes money…. He must resign”, said Mulayam. The bedlam that ensued resulted in the House’s adjournment.

Amidst this distressing scenario, the only saving grace was the Opposition behavior. In a chat with me asserted BJP’s Dy Leader of the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, “we had consciously decided to avoid disruptionist tactics unlike in 2004-09. We realized that it did not go down well with the people”. Importantly, the time has come for our netagan to understand that becoming an MP is not an end in itself. It entails upholding Parliament’s sovereignty, behaving transparently and bringing accountability in the system. Is that asking for too much? ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)