New Delhi, 30 October 2007

Nuclear Controversy

SEEK SENSE OF PARLIAMENT

By Poonam I Kaushish

India’s endemic crisis of casualness has created another problem. A basic issue of critical importance to the future of our democracy, thrown up by the controversy over the Indo-US nuclear deal, has not received the attention it deserves: Is Parliament supreme vis a vis the Executive or is it not supreme? The Constitution is crystal clear in the matter. Article 75(3) provides: The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People or the Lok Sabha as it is popularly known.

The issue popped up initially when the UPA Government announced its willingness to hold a debate on the nuclear deal. The BJP-led NDA welcomed the debate but demanded a vote at the end. This was not acceptable to the Government. The matter came up again when the Government agreed to set up a Committee with the Left to resolve differences. The BJP objected and demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee to whet the deal. The Government again said no and an angry BJP thereafter stalled the monsoon session.

The Left, which has threatened to pull the rug time and again, wants Parliament to debate the deal but not vote on the motion as it would leave it with no elbow room for manoeuvre. Either it would have to vote against the deal, which would mean bringing down the Government. Or, it would simply have to walk out of the House, which would mean losing credibility and making a bigger laughing stock of themselves.

Top leaders of the UPA’s major allies ---- NCP’s Pawar, DMK’s Karunanidhi and RJD’s Laloo too rubbish all talk of a vote. That would constrain them to affix their seal of approval or disapproval, notwithstanding tall talk of misgivings about the deal. It could also result in a loss of power and patronage, which none wants at any cost.

The Congress expectedly opposes a vote. It knows only too well that a majority in the Lok Sabha, including the Left, is opposed to the deal. Any vote would surely lead to the Government’s exit. Hence, the emphasis on a debate without a vote. But then the Opposition justifiably asks: What purpose will a toothless debate sans voting serve?

It is, therefore, high time that the Government carries out its responsibilities honourably. It should summon both the Houses of Parliament without further delay. This could be done by either convening a special session forthwith or by advancing Parliament’s winter session, with at least a week earmarked solely for a full debate on the nuclear deal.

All parties, groups and MPs eager to participate in the debate must be provided adequate time to have their full say. Following which, ideally, the motion should be put to vote so as to leave no scope for any doubt about the will of Parliament. If the Government is still hell-bent against a vote, it should at least seek the sense of the Lok Sabha, which could be done without jeopardizing its own existence. If the sense is for the deal, the Government should go ahead. If not, the deal must be called off.

True, the Constitution does not specifically require the Government to take prior parliamentary approval for conducting the affairs of the State, including foreign policy, and seek ratification of international agreements. Nevertheless, in our democracy, Parliament is supreme vis a vis the Executive. The Government is answerable to it every minute of its existence.

Interestingly, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam too is of the same view. He has asserted in a newspaper article that absence of a legal dispensation requiring Parliamentary approval of major matters “is merely a technicality.” He adds: “Every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.”

Not just that. He adds: “If the Prime Minister had taken this step earlier, the present impasse could have been avoided. Either he was naïve or was ill-advised. But at least the Congress, which has ruled the country the longest and has vast experience of government, should have followed the correct path and got Parliament’s concurrence.”

Especially as India’s foreign policy is not the sole prerogative of any single party, or a coalition Government. In the present case too, what is at stake is India’s foreign policy and India’s nuclear deal, not that of the UPA. Time was when India’s foreign policy was bi-partisan under Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Wherein both sides of the political spectrum were agreed on basic issues. There was thus no occasion for successive Governments to seek prior Parliamentary approval.

The same does not hold good today. There are sharp differences on foreign policy. What is more, the UPA Government lacks a clear mandate. It is essentially a Government of post-poll opportunistic alliances. The Prime Minister is welcome to claim that the UPA enjoys a majority mandate and is, therefore, entitled to go ahead with the deal.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Congress won only 143 seats in the Lok Sabha of 545 members. A simple majority totals 272 MPs. To make up the shortfall of over 130 MPs, the Party allied with the Left and smattering of regional outfits to form the Government. The UPA could have claimed a majority mandate had it gone to the polls as a united front. But it did not.

Questionably, can a Government which did not secure a proper majority mandate commit future generations of Indians to a deal which is opposed tooth and nail by a majority of the parties and groups in Parliament? Clearly, it would be right and proper for the Government to push ahead with the deal only if a majority favours it. Thus the least that the Government must do is to seek a sense of the Lok Sabha.

The Congress takes great and understandable pride in harking back to Nehru’s legacy time and again. Yet it conveniently forgets the supreme respect India’s first Prime Minister gave to Parliament. On one occasion, he even came to the Lok Sabha to request permission to leave New Delhi to attend a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London when Parliament was in session. Such was his great respect for Parliament.

Nehru need not have done so. Neither was it a Constitutional requirement nor did the rules of Parliament enjoin upon the Prime Minister to seek Parliament’s prior approval for going abroad. However, Nehru did so as it was the right thing to do vis-à-vis the highest temple of democracy. Today, even junior Ministers think nothing of departing without notice!

Nehru wanted India and its Parliamentarians to always draw inspiration from Britain, which works out its democracy admirably even when, unlike India, it has no written Constitution. Westminster functions on the premise of what is done and what is not done. Consequently, any Minister who comes under a cloud resigns because that is the right thing to do. No one demands a commission of enquiry or talks of the law taking its due course.

Merely because our Constitution or laws do not provide for prior Parliamentary approval before an international treaty like the nuclear deal is signed does not mean that the Government is scot free to do whatever it wants. Our Constitution does not, for instance, pointedly enjoin upon us Indians to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Does that mean we can merrily tell lies and damn lies?

Clearly, it is time that Parliament is summoned soonest and a sense of the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, ascertained on the deal. The Prime Minister need not worry about any loss of face. He should know that in a Cabinet form of Government, the PM is only the first among equals. Appropriately, he took the deal to the Cabinet and secured its approval. It is not his fault if his fair-weather allies have now chosen to desert him and undermine the coalition dharma.

Neither should the UPA worry that its Government would fall if the sense of the House, which is an implied vote, goes against the nuclear deal. After all, to quote Manmohan Singh: “The UPA Government is not a one issue Government”…. It would merely have “to live with certain disappointments…. and move on to the next….”

In sum, the UPA Government must take immediate steps to end the paralysis that now grips its functioning by having a full and detailed debate on the nuclear deal. The NDA, for its part, must cooperate and take note that the country has had enough of irresponsible stalling of the Houses. Every party, group must be given full opportunity for a threadbare discussion of the deal. Parliament must be enabled to express itself forthrightly. Either it is supreme vis-à-vis the Executive or it is not. We cannot have it both ways! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)