By Inder Jit
(Released 16 April 1985)
The Lok Sabha successfully warded off last Wednesday a major assault on its dignity. Full marks for this must mainly go to the Opposition which, though largely decimated by the December poll, showed welcome vigilance and capacity for coordinated action. Not a little credit must also go to the Speaker. Mr. Bal Ram Jakhar, who stood up for the honour of the House in accordance with the best parliamentary tradition and tactfully succeeded in upholding it. All this happened around 5.30 pm when the Minister of State for External affairs, Mr. Khurshid Alam Khan rose to reply to the budget demands of the Ministry. The Opposition leaders — Mr. Madhav Reddi, Telugu Desam, Prof. Madhu Dandavate, Janata and Mr. K.P. Unnikrishnan, Congress-S – were soon on their legs to protest that the House was being treated in a “cavalier manner”. It was neither right nor proper for the Minister of State, who did not hold independent charge of “this important portfolio” to reply to the debate. The Prime Minister had been “conspicuous by his absence”.
The issue had been raised on Tuesday. The Minister of State was thereafter seen taking extensive notes. It was generally expected that he would brief the Prime Minister and that the latter would reply to the debate. Yet this had not happened constraining Mr Madhav Reddi to assert: “It is downgrading this Ministry. We object to this.” Mr Unnikrishnan did not stop at merely voicing a protest. He raised a point of order after clarifying that he and other members bore “no illwill” to Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, who was “a very good friend”. Earlier Prime Ministers had taken delight in replying to the debate on External Affairs, which was held only once in a way. Said he: “We have been complaining in this House that we do not have enough occasions to debate the questions of foreign policy. Here the entire gamut of international relations is decided and here is a Minister who does not hold independent charge…” Major issues required to be clarified, said Mr Unnikrishnan and added: “It is totally undemocratic. It has never happened…”
Mr Jaipal Reddy, Janata, then pleaded: “This is the first opportunity for the new Government and the new External Affairs Minister and Prime Minister to put forward his policy on key foreign issues… The whole world is anxious to know…” However, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Mr H.K.L. Bhagat, characteristically stuck to his guns and asserted: “The Minister of State is absolutely competent to reply to the debate. There is nothing wrong in that…” Even as the Opposition leaders interrupted, Mr Bhagat added: “The Prime Minister has all along taken very keen interest in Parliament. Consequently even in the…” At this point, Mr Rajiv Gandhi was seen entering the House. Mr Bhagat then asserted: “The Prime Minister is here now. The Prime Minister has spoken on foreign affairs many a time… The Minister of State is quite competent to give reply.” The Deputy Speaker thereupon ruled: “There is no point of order because, as the Parliamentary Affairs Minister has also observed, the State Minister is competent to answer. I do not think there is anything wrong in that.”
Fortunately for the Lok Sabha, the Speaker Mr Bal Ram Jakhar entered the House at this point — Just when the entire Opposition was preparing to stage a protest walk-out. Prof Dandavate then said: “For your information, I would like to summarise the point of order. Right from the first Lok Sabha to the seventh Lok Sabha, it has been the convention…” Before he could complete, some Congress-I members interrupted and Mr. Bhagat asserted: “The Deputy Speaker has already given his observation on his point of order. There is nothing in the point of order.” However, the Speaker permitted Prof. Dandavate to continue ruling: “I have allowed him”. Prof. Dandavate then said: “There is not a single debate on the demands of the External Affairs Ministry which was not replied to by the Cabinet Minister or the Ministers holding independent charge… This is the convention. You are the custodian not only of the rules but of the conventions of this House. If you in your wisdom decide to say good bye to this convention, you are at liberty to do so. But we won’t tolerate it. I would like the Prime Minister to reply to the debate, which will fit in with the traditions and conventions of the House…”
The Opposition leaders were soon on their legs to protest the House was being treated in a “cavalier manner”. It was neither right nor proper for Minister of State, who did not hold independent charge of “this important portfolio” to reply to the debate. The Prime Minister had been “conspicuous by his absence”.
The Speaker then retrieved the situation saying: “The Deputy Speaker in his wisdom has already stated that it is not out of order if the Minister replies. But the Prime Minister has come.” Mr. Unnikrishnan promptly interjected: “But you can correct his wisdom.” Prof. Dandawate also pleaded: “You can complement his wisdom, Sir. I won’t say ‘correct’” The Speaker replied: “The Prime Minister has come and he will explain it.” The Prime Minister then said: “For your information, I think my Minister for External Affairs is fully competent to reply to this debate. If there are any questions left after he has answered, I will answer.” But the Opposition was not satisfied. Mr. Basudeb Acharia asserted: “The Minister can intervene but the final reply should come from the Prime Minister”. While Congress-I men interrupted and protested, the Speaker said: “He will sum up.” Prof. Dandavate, however, refused to take any chance and said: “Sir, do we take it that there will be intervention by the Minister of State and the final reply will come from the Prime Minister.” The Speaker replied: “He will take care of the rest.”
Mr Unnikrishnan protested afresh: “But he is holding charge of External Affairs.” The Speaker replied: “He is right here in the House to look after it. Yes, he will also reply to it. He will also take part.” Mr Madhav Reddi said: “Let the Minister speak and let him (Prime Minister) reply.” More interruptions followed. The Speaker then said: “The Prime Minister has already explained to you that he will sum up if anything is left from the reply.” Prof Dandavate then clinched matters: “Let it be understood that there is no disrespect to Mr Khan… We have no doubt about his competence. The question is about propriety and conventions… Let it go on record that the Prime Minister will reply and this will be an intervention by the Minister of State. It will be in the best interest of the conventions of the House.” Mercifully, the speaker then ruled: “Now, let us say that Mr Khan will intervene in the debate and finally the Prime Minister will reply to the debate tomorrow.”
The Speaker’s final decision did not come through on the basis of the exchanges alone as it might appear. Quiet work went into it behind the scenes initially leading to the Prime Minister’s unexpected arrival – and thereafter on the front Treasury Benches as witnessed from my perch in the Press Gallery overlooking the Prime Minister’s seat. Mr. Veerendra Patil, Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers and of Industry, was seen inviting Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, to his side and saying something to him. Mr Azad soon walked over to the Speaker and had a quiet word with him. He next spoke to the Prime Minister and was soon back again with the Speaker who then announced: “Mr Khan will intervene in the debate and finally the Prime Minister will reply to the debate tomorrow.” Enquiries later showed that this formula was first mooted by Mr. Patil who, as an experienced legislator, felt that the wrong needed to be corrected. He then suggested to Mr. Azad that the Prime Minister could reply to the debate the following morning. This would give him enough time to prepare his reply. Both the Speaker and the Prime Minister agreed and the controversy was resolved.
Cleary, the Prime Minister was not properly advised in regard parliamentary procedures and conventions. Nevertheless, three points need to be noted. First, he did not intend to go against the established tradition and cause any insult to the Lok Sabha. As he himself told me later, he had asked Mr. Khan to reply to the debate as part of their overall decision to give the Ministers of State full opportunity to handle debates on the budget demands of their respective Ministries. Second, he bowed to the wishes of the Opposition and himself replied to the debate once he discovered that there had been a lapse. Third, he replied to the debate the same evening and did not wait to do so until the following morning as proposed by his colleagues – and announced by the Speaker. Some newsmen left the Press Gallery after the Speaker’s announcement and missed hearing him in the bargain. But the important thing is that a mistake was gracefully corrected and the earliest step taken to uphold the dignity both of the Lok Saba and the office of Prime Minister.
Major policy announcements are required by convention to be made first in Parliament. Nehru refused to make any policy statement outside Parliament even a fortnight prior to its session. Parliament may not have been adequately jealous of its privilege. But the Prime Minister as the leader of the House in the Lok Sabha must be clear on fundamentals.
That, however, is not all. One unfortunate aspect of the whole affair remains to be mentioned. The debate on foreign affairs or the Prime Minister’s reply lacked any great public or diplomatic interest. Normally, one would have expected the Visitors and the Diplomats Galleries to be packed to capacity to hear the new Prime Minister on foreign affairs. Yet, these were virtually empty. The reason? The Prime Minister had already expressed himself on major world issues through several interviews to both Indian and foreign media during the past few weeks. Doubtless, these interviews have their advantage. But these have undermined the prestige of Parliament now in session. Major policy announcements are required by convention to be made first in Parliament. Nehru refused to make any policy statement outside Parliament even a fortnight prior to its session. Parliament may not have been adequately jealous of its privilege. But the Prime Minister as the leader of the House in the Lok Sabha must be clear on fundamentals. Parliament’s dignity and conventions are as vital as the Constitution. — INFA