Anhoni Jab Honi Ho Jai
By Poonam I Kaushish
Fatigued and bored of first phase of Parliament’s tumultuous Budget session. Wake up. Three, unthinkable things happened resulting in a first rate emotion-filled politico-drama. Questionably, anhoni jab honi ho jai, tab kya hua…
One, Prime Minister Modi did not reply to President Murmu’s Motion of Thanks in Lok Sabha on Speaker’s directions that he had “credible information that several Congress women MPs would create an unprecedented incident after reaching Prime Minister’s seat.” Even as Congress denied there was any plan to carry out an “unpleasant act” or physical threat,Birla ignored it.
Raising a moot point: Is the Prime Minister unsafe in India’s temple of democracy Parliament? How and why? Given he enjoys the highest security in the country. Besides, Parliament complex is secured by hi-tech gadgets and installations alongside its security is handled by the Central Industrial Security Force directly overseen by the Home Ministry.
This in an extremely serious matter which should be thoroughly investigated and all loopholes, if any, should be plugged immediately. Clearly, even by standards of current political distrust this stretches credulity. Whereby, the Speaker’s conduct invites criticism which he urgently needs to answer.
Two, 118 Opposition MPs submit a no-confidence notice seeking Lok Sabha Speaker Birla’s removal. Accusing him of favouring BJP-led NDA and not letting Opposition members speak during the Session. Opposition’s anger centres on Birla not allowing Rahul Gandhi to speak in the House about ex-Army Chief Naravane unpublished memoirs accusing him of openly espousing the ruling Party’s version on all controversial matters.
In a climate of polarisation there has been long-simmering friction between the Speaker and Opposition reaching a flashpoint during the Winter Session when eight MPs were suspended even as he let BJP MPs get away with similar conduct. Birla stands accused of his “aggressive” posture during Opposition protests and his partiality to BJP.
Although Government has the numbers and the motion against Speaker will be defeated when the House reconvenes 9 March, Birla, has taken a moral high ground and decided he would not attend House proceedings until a decision is taken on the no-confidence motion.
Who is to blame? BJP which has hailed Parliamentary disruptions as a form of democratic protest and indulged in them extensively in the past? Or Speaker who allegedly seems to appear keen to protect the interests of the ruling dispensation? Or is it the gradual erosion of democracy where, on one side, decorous debate has become impossible, and on the other, even the prestige of a hoary position cannot make office-bearers cast aside their private political leanings.
Till date, no Speaker has been removed from Office though attempts have been made. In 1954 MPs moved a motion against Speaker Mavalankar which was defeated, in 1966 against Hukam Singh was not admitted as it lacked requisite number backers and in 1987 against Balram Jakhar again defeated with them continuing to hold office.
Forgotten in the quintessential position, is the Speaker who is essentially servant of the House has fast become its master, thanks to rules of procedure. Highlighting, falling standards in conducting legislative business in Parliament and the need to clearly define these.
Undoubtedly, the Speaker’s position is paradoxical. He contests election for Parliament or State Assembly and then for the post on a Party ticket, and yet is expected to conduct himself in a non-partisan manner, all the while being beholden to the Party for a ticket for the next election. Confided a former Lok Sabha Speaker: “We are elected on Party tickets with Party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming Speaker, we would still have to go back to the Party for sponsorship for next election.”
Three, a BJP MP initiates a substantive motion against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi for termination of his Lok Sabha membership and a lifetime ban on contesting elections for being “an urban Naxal, hand in glove” with “anti-national” forces. Adding, he has engaged with Soros Foundation, Ford Foundation, USAID, travelled to US, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to engage in “anti-India” activities.
Besides, “he is very cleverly fomenting public sentiments, levelling unsubstantiated allegations against Election Commission, Supreme Court, lowering Government’s dignity without any evidence.” It’s another matter the motion comes a day after Gandhi tore into the India-U.S. trade deal, accusing Government of compromising national interests.
Countered Congress, “We are not bothered about any motions and if you want to hang us, we are ready for that also. Which privilege has Gandhi broken? They removed him last time. What happened afterwards people ensured his victory with more votes compared to that of Modi…”
The key question is whether Government will allow the matter to proceed to a vote. There have been past instances where matters did not reach voting stage. Political analysts assert many such motions are political statements rather than steps to remove someone.
What’s the likely outcome? If the motion is discussed, it will become a political debate in Parliament. The Speaker decides if any further action is warranted whereby the motion could remain symbolic rather than resulting in disqualification. Succinctly, the motion is serious politically and symbolically, showing a strong BJP pushback. First, it must navigate Parliamentary processes. But as of now it is not an immediate legal removal or ban on Gandhi.
In this milieu is deflection the new accountability? Is comparison the new conscience? And is attacking an opponent answer to a moral question?
Where does one go from here? Time to look afresh at the Speaker’s powers, depoliticize his office and promote neutrality. Under Westminster model, Speaker resigns from his Party on his election and is re-elected unopposed in subsequent elections in the House of Commons. Lok Sabha and Assembly Speaker’s impartiality is more important as he has more absolute powers than his House of Commons’s counterpart.
Succinctly, the Speaker is of the House, by the House and for the House. He has to place himself in a judge’s position, not become partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view thus inspiring confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality.
The three anhonis signal a breakdown of trust and harmony between Treasury and Opposition benches leaving no room for manoeuvres for both sides. Having ratcheted up the pitch both sides need to ask where they can go from here: Bury the hatchet and restore Parliamentary ethos and honour through negotiation, not removal.
As for Speaker the onus is on him and his Office to earn the confidence of the Opposition, motion or no motion. Parliament functions best when procedure is respected and political battles stay within democratic norms. The moment of decision has arrived. There is no middle ground left. What gives? —— INFA