REWIND
New Delhi, 21 September 2023
Decline of Parliament
By Inder Jit
(Released on April 8, 1980)
Parliament and its functioning is
regrettably not receiving from its sovereign matters, the people, the close
attention it deserves. Hundreds of men, women and students no doubt turn up to
see the two Houses at work. Often, they queue up patiently for an hour or more
outside for the privilege and for “enjoying” what many later describe as the
zero-hour drama. The Press, too, reports its proceedings prominently and fairly
fully. But the relationship between the two seldom goes beyond as between a
cinemagoer and the film or between the fans and the freestyle wrestlers with
one difference: visitors to the two Houses are strictly barred from cheering or
jeering or participating in any other way. Not many care to remember that they
themselves are the masters and, what is more, ask: is Parliament functioning
usefully as it should in terms of results and money spent?Is it improving with
time or is it declining? Can something be done to revamp its quality or at
least to stop the slide downhill?
Candidly, few things have depressed
me as much in recent weeks as my frequent visits to the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha while the brief budget session was on. Parliament’s decline continues and
in many ways the recent session saw it touch a new low. Undoubtedly,
Parliament’s functioning left much to be desired even during Nehru’s time. (It
has been my privilege to get a ringside view of the two Houses for almost three
decades.) Nevertheless, Nehru was greatly missed within a few years of his
death as also his assiduous efforts to nurture Parliamentary democracy and
build up healthy conventions. Indeed, the decline became so pronounced by the
early seventies that the years under Nehru appeared in contrast as Parliament’s
“golden period.” Today, one yearns nostalgically for the situation as it
prevailed in the early seventies, provoking a veteran to remark: “Our problem
is no longer one of how to strengthen Parliament. We have now to save
Parliament.”
Nothing symbolizes the decline of
Parliament more than two of the several aspects of the last session. First, the
basic concept of parliamentary democracy was forgotten and the Treasury benches
and the Opposition members clashed repeatedly in tempestuous verbal duels
making any orderly functioning of the two Houses impossible. Second, the
failure of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to discuss adequately one of the
gravest developments in post-independent India: the unprecedented economic
blockade of one State by men and women belonging to another State. Admittedly,
the Opposition came forward in the Lok Sabha with adjournment motions. But all
these were disallowed by the Speaker, Mr. Bal Ram, in his wisdom. Attempts by
the Opposition leaders to get the Speaker to reconsider proved in vain.
Instead, Mr. Madhu Dandavate was allowed to raise the subject under Rule 377 and
Mr. K.P. Unnikrishnan through a calling attention notice. Both devices were
evolved in the fifties to enable members to elicit information only and not to
thrash out urgent issues agitating the whole nation.
The Speaker was within his powers to
disallow the adjournment motion and ask the Opposition leaders to see him in
his chamber even if this provoked Mr. G.M. Banatwala, Muslim League, to tell
the Deputy Speaker later in another context: “I have been elected to the House
and not to the chamber of the Speaker.” The Speaker’s discretion is absolutely
under the rules and no member is permitted to raise in the House a matter once
disallowed. However, veteran Parliamentarians emphasise one basic truth:
Parliament is sovereign in regard to its functioning, not the rules. In fact,
the rules empower Parliament to suspend the rules themselves in case these are
found to come in the way of its functioning in the best national interest.
Never before was an issue more eminently suited for an adjournment motion, according
to the experts. (Incidentally, the Lok Sabha debated adjournment motions on the
Teachers’ strike in Calcutta in 1954, firing in Bhangi Colony in Delhi in 1957
and the Assam language riots in 1971.) Democracy, they further assert, is
sustained by discussion and debate, not by shutting these out.
Much in the final analysis depends
upon the quality of Parliament and its members. The founding fathers of the
Constitution were fully conscious of this aspect, especially in a country like
India. In fact, they engrafted in our Constitution an innovation empowering
Parliament to lay down additional qualifications for becoming a member of
either House of Parliament --- apart from being qualified to be an elector.
This provision, according to Dr. Ambedkar, was intended to secure for
Parliament men of better caliber than an ordinary voter. Alas, however, no
additional qualifications to achieve that end have as yet been framed. What is
worse, even where the Constitution has provided some yardstick, the
qualifications have been diluted and distorted over the years. A case in point
is the provision for the nomination of twelve members to the Rajya Sabha
consisting of persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in
respect of such matters as the following, namely, literature, science, art and
social service.”
The provision enables the Government
to make available to Parliament the services of distinguished persons unwilling
to get involved in the rough and tumble of politics. Several eminent men have
consequently adorned the Rajya Sabha. These included educationists like Dr.
Zakir Husain, historians like Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji and Dr. Tara Chand,
scientists like Dr. Satyendranath Bose, poets like Maithilisharan Gupta and
Harivansh Rai Bachchan and artistes like Rukmini Devi Arundale and Prithviraj
Kapoor. At the same time, however, the provision was misused to nominate to the
House former Ministers like Mr. Mohanlal Saksena and Mr. JairamdasDaulatram in
1959. Subsequently, even erstwhile members of the Lok Sabha belonging to the
party in power were nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Not only that. Independent
persons nominated have been encouraged to become member of the party in power,
making a mockery of the Constitution whereunder these members are barred from voting
in the Presidential poll to emphasise their non-alignment and independence.
At the time the Constitution was
framed, the Union Constitution Committee recommended that ten members be
nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President in consultations with the
universities and scientific bodies. The proposal came up before the Constituent
Assembly but was not favoured because of a strong feeling against having a
second chamber in India. But the mood changed when Mr. N. GopalaswamyAyyanger
persuasively argued in its favour and observed that by doing so “…we also give
an opportunity, perhaps, to seasoned people who may not be in the thickest of
political fray, but who might be willing to participate in the debate with an
amount of learning and importance which we do not ordinarily associate with the
House of the People.” In fact, he then moved an amendment proposing that “we
should have 25 members in the second chamber to be returned by functional
committees or panels on the lines of the Irish Constitution of 1937 which
provides for 11 nominated members in the Seanad Eireann of 60 members.
The first draft Constitution of
October 1947 thereupon contained the GopalaswamyAyyangar proposal for having 25
“seasoned people” in the second chamber. The draft further provided for five
functional panels which were to be constituted as follows: persons with
knowledge and practical experience in (1) national languages and culture,
literature, art, education and other professional interests to be defined by an
Act of Parliament; (2) agriculture and allied interests; (3) labour; (4)
industry and commerce, including banking and finance, accountancy, engineering
and architecture and (5) public administration and social services. The Fourth
Schedule appended to the Draft Constitution contained detailed provisions for
drawing up the five panels. Twenty-five members were then proposed to be
elected out of these panels by the House of the People according to
proportional representation. But the scheme underwent a further change following
the visit of Sir B.N. Rau, Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly,
to the United States and Ireland.
President de Valera, according to
Framing of the Indian Constitution, edited by B. Shiva Rao, advised Sir B.N.
Rau against adopting the Irish panels. The Drafting Committee consequently
dropped the panels and instead empowered the President to nominate 15 members
with experience and knowledge of (a) literature, art, science and education;
(b) agriculture, fisheries and allied subjects; (c) engineering and
architecture; (d) public administration and social sciences and (e) labour and
commerce. Ultimately, Dr. Ambedkar cut down the number of nominated members
from 15 to 12 and suggested that these (as presently provided) should come from
“literature, art, science and social service.” He also proposed that the
President be empowered from time to time to nominate up to three persons to
assist both Houses of Parliament in regard to a particular bill. Unfortunately,
however, Dr. Ambedkar had second thoughts and an interesting proposal fell by
the wayside.
Not a few wish in retrospect that
some of the proposals mooted by Dr. Ambedkar and others had been accepted.
Indeed, there is clearly a case for taking a fresh look at the quality of
Parliament and see if something can still be done in two ways. First, by laying
down additional qualifications for MPs. And, second, by perhaps increasing the
number of nominated members in the Rajya Sabha from 12 to 25, as once proposed,
to enable Parliament to get the full benefit of the experience and wisdom of
some of its top men following retirement from their statutory offices such as
the Chief Justice of India, the Chairman of the UPSC, the Comptroller and
Auditor General and the Chief Election Commissioner. The list could perhaps be
expanded to include Bharat Ratnas, the retiring Cabinet Secretary and the three
Services Chiefs. But the nominations would have to be statutorily provided and
not left to the sweet will of the Government of the day. Such a scheme could,
together with other measures, go a long way in improving the quality of
Parliament and in checking its distressing decline.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|