By Inder Jit
(Released on 13 September 1966)
Parliament’s monsoon session has made all right-thinking people sit up and ask: whither our young democracy? Undoubtedly, the session was the most exciting in years even though no heads rolled. It provided spicy copy for newsmen and a lot of inexpensive “tamasha” for the jampacked public galleries day after day. At least once, the visitors found themselves directly addressed by a member and were so carried away by the thrill of the moment that they burst into applause despite the rule enjoining silence. The Government emerged from the session badly mauled and the Opposition gloating triumphantly over its many unexpected successes. Nevertheless, Parliament as an institution cannot be said to have added to its stature.
If the truth be told, Parliament seems to have touched a new low since its golden days of the Nehru-Mavalankar period from 1947 till 1955. Various recognized conventions, rules and procedures, essential for the smooth running of parliamentary institutions, were broken and defied as never before. That parliamentary democracy is government by discussion was forgotten and invective and shouting often took the place of argument and reasoning. Parliamentary privilege was repeatedly used to sling mud at adversaries, notwithstanding the various checks and balances provided in the rules. Time and again, the proverbial (and vital) respect for the chair was conspicuously lacking.
Much of the present trouble is due to want of understanding of the delicate mechanism of parliamentary democracy. Few appear to realize that this sensitive mechanism can function only if the Speaker, the Government and the Opposition act in unison and show a certain willingness to compromise and accommodate. Few also seem to realize that among the three, the Speaker has a key role to play as the custodian of the rules, without which Parliamentary proceedings would surely be reduced to chaos.
The late Mr. Vithalbhai Patel had laid down three basic rules, which he enforced ruthlessly. First, what was not on the agenda could not be raised on the floor of the House without prior permission. Secondly, no one could speak until recognized by the chair. Thirdly, there was to be pin drop silence once the Speaker was on his feet. Today, hardly a day passes when all the three basic rules are not violated with impunity.
Irrelevance and repetitiveness have encouraged indiscipline and a tendency to flout the chair apart from creating side problems. It has lately become quite common for members to take advantage of any broad discussion to indulge in sniping at individuals — with or without reason. A case in point was the discussion in the Rajya Sabha on the bill for the takeover of Jayanti Shipping. Yet, Mr. Raj Narain used the occasion to level charges against the Prime Minister irrespective of the fact that these were not connected with the legislation under discussion.
Not a little damage has been done by the way charges are frequently hurled by members on the floor of the House without the slightest regard for fair-play. Head-hunting may provide members with an exciting pastime. But if allegations are made irresponsibly in the style of the market place, even well-founded and deserving exposures may get dismissed as baseless. At any rate, character assassination is a game at which two can play. If today, the Opposition can throw mud at the Ministers, so can Congress members at the Opposition.
Mr. C. Subramaniam bemoaned on Friday that he had been unjustifiably defamed and asked if something could not be done to “ensure that no member was attacked or defamed without unimpeachable proof or notice”. Of course, something can be done. In fact, the rules provide a ready answer — if only they are sternly enforced. The relevant rule lays down that “no allegations of s defamatory or incriminating nature should be made by a member against any person unless the member gives prior intimation to the Speaker and also to the Minister concerned so that the Minister may be able to make an investigation into the matter to give a reply.”
Again prior intimation is not intended to be a mere formality. The Speaker has to be satisfied that the member has prima facie evidence to support his allegation. And, even where the Speaker is satisfied, the rule arms his with adequate power to ensure that the exposure is for the public good. The rule carries a proviso which says that “the Speaker may at any time prohibit any member from making any such allegation if he is of opinion that such allegation is derogatory to the dignity of the House or that no public interest will be served by making such an allegation”.
If the truth be told, Parliament seems to have touched a new low since its golden days of the Nehru-Mavalankar period from 1947 till 1955. Various recognized conventions, rules and procedures, essential for the smooth running of parliamentary institutions, were broken and defied as never before. That parliamentary democracy is government by discussion was forgotten and invective and shouting often took the place of argument and reasoning.
Freedom of speech in Parliament is entirely the business of Parliament, and no outside authority can control or curb it. However, it is something which has to be self-regulated if it is not to degenerate into licence. The Constitution leaves no scope for doubt. It stipulates that freedom of speech in Parliament is subject to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the Houses. It is a freedom to be used for the good and strength of Parliament, not for its destruction.
The late Mr. Vithalbhai Patel had laid down three basic rules, which he enforced ruthlessly. First, what was not on the agenda could not be raised on the floor of the House without prior permission. Secondly, no one could speak until recognized by the chair. Thirdly, there was to be pin drop silence once the Speaker was on his feet. Today, hardly a day passes when all the three basic rules are not violated with impunity.
There can be no two opinions that this freedom has not been used responsibly. Charges have been levelled without prior intimation to the Speaker, and even in the absence of the member concerned. Erring members have not always been brought to book. Nor have those flippantly accused shown adequate guts or knowledge of procedure to get a wrong righted by follow-up action. Matters have been allowed to rest with a mere denial, as in the case of Mr. Hem Barua’s charge against Mr. Swaran Singh. As one who denied that he had received election funds from Aminchand Pyarelal, Mr. Swaran Singh should have challenged Mr. Baruah to prove his charge or to withdraw it with an adequate apology. A healthy procedural deterrent would have been provided.
A misdirected and, therefore, abortive attempt was made by the Treasury benches to inject a greater sense of responsibility among members when Mr. Chagla came forward with a privilege motion against Mr. Raj Narain for his refusal to withdraw his charges against Mrs. Gandhi. The purpose would have been served much better had a motion dealing with the conduct of the member been brought forward instead of a privilege motion, a technical issue. Mr. Raj Narain would then have had to prove his charge or face censure for not maintaining the standards of conduct expected of a member. Parliament is empowered to inflict any punishment, including removal from membership, as in the case of Mr. Mudgal.
A great deal of responsibility undoubtedly rests on the presiding officer. But his effectiveness depends essentially upon the support that he gets from the House or at least the Government benches. The House of Commons, it is often said, is not really bothered about whether a Speaker is right or wrong so long as he is firm. However, this strength to be firm has to be derived from the House. Increasingly, the Speaker in India is left by both sides to fend for himself. The worst example was provided by the Government at the very start of the session when it initially insisted on a discussion of its motion on the economic situation and then, in a volte face, agreed to discuss the no-confidence motion, without a word to the Speaker. Seldom before has Speaker been let down so badly.
A dominant personality like Mr. Nehru is required to guide young democracies. This role can also be played by a Government that is alert, does its homework and functions as a vigorous team, backed by a party in the true sense of the term. But the present Treasury benches are not only repeatedly caught napping but hardly conduct themselves as a team. Indeed, the Government (and equally the party) gives the impression of an odd assortment, with one minister often apparently relishing the discomfiture of another. Even normal courtesies are ignored. Mr. T.N. Singh’s statement in the Lok Sabha that the Minister mentioned by the P.A.C. was Mr. Subramaniam, came as a complete surprise to the latter who was present in the House barely a few seats away!
The Opposition, weak and divided, has taken to boisterousness out of a sense of frustration, which is understandable. Not infrequently, it has levelled charges that have not easily been accepted, as in the case of Mr. Kairon. This has made it swing to the other extreme of occasionally playing to the gallery, every piece of unverified information getting bandied about. The job of the Opposition is to expose the Government and it has undoubtedly been effective in doing so. It has also been able to catch various Ministers on the wrong foot and even wring apologies from some. However, it must realize that by trying to browbeat authority and disregarding the chair’s injunctions, it is only hurting its basic interest.
Irrelevance and repetitiveness have encouraged indiscipline and a tendency to flout the chair apart from creating side problems. It has lately become quite common for members to take advantage of any broad discussion to indulge in sniping at individuals — with or without reason.
Parliament may be said only to reflect the general indiscipline outside. But what happens within the temple of democracy has its chain reaction. Indiscipline, irrelevance and irresponsibility must not, therefore, be allowed to run riot in Parliament. In this context, Mr. Nehru’s meaningful variation of the famous saying about power and corruption is worth recalling. Said the late P.M.: “Irresponsibility corrupts and absolutely irresponsibility corrupts absolutely.” — INFA