Parliamentary discourse reached its nadir during disruptions on the demonetisation imbroglio. Bedlam is part of parliamentary history world over and India with its vibrant multiparty democracy is no exception. The debate in the past week, however, was unprecedented because the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, P.J. Kurien had to take the extraordinary step of chiding the Treasury benches for participating in the process of disrupting the House on 23 November. “It is the job of the Treasury Benches to ensure that the House runs smoothly. For the first time I am seeing this kind of a disturbance with Treasury Benches themselves coming and creating a problem…I am very sorry”, the chair told Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, imploring him to rein in BJP members who were matching the Opposition’s filibustering.
The Opposition in both Houses were insisting that the Prime Minister be present when demonetisation was discussed. Narendra Modi appeard briefly in Lok Sabha on 23 November and in the Rajya Sabha a day later. The government’s stand was that the Prime Minister cannot be expected to remain in the House throughout the debate. To this, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Ghulam Nabi Azad, retorted that when coal scam was discussed during Monsoon Session of 2013 the then Opposition (now the Treasury Benches) had insisted on Dr Manmohan Singh’s presence and the former Prime Minister sat through the debate for two days. (PM is not required to sit through an entire debate; concerned minister’s presence is sufficient.)
Here lies the crunch. Parties when in Opposition sometimes create precedence which haunt them in their better days, in power. Ghulam Nabi Azad served as Parliamentary Affairs Minister under three Prime Ministers and he was perhaps right when he sought to point out the chinks in the ruling BJP’s armour. Unlike past practice, the ministers in the present government entrusted with the crucial Parliamentary Affairs portfolio tend to lead their flock in the House instead of acting as bridge between divergent streams and parties to ensure smooth functioning of Parliament. In previous BJP regimes, stalwarts like Madan Lal Khurna and Pramod Mahajan had played this role effectively—they both did not enjoy the kind of majority on the Floor as the present set of ministers do.
Crossing over to the Treasury Benches members of a political party must divest their “opposition mindset”. This writer was with Ramkrishna Hegde in Bangalore on 10 January 1983, when he was sworn in as the Janata Chief Minister (in tandem with N.T. Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh, after upsetting the Congress applecart).While media interview was on, a senior Cabinet minister Abdul Nazir Saab rushed in—riots had broken out somewhere and he wanted the CM to immediately visit the crisis spot. “We are no longer in the Opposition, let the Chief Secretary brief me; we shall take a call thereafter”, Hegde told his agitated colleague. The mindset of governance was writ large in this interaction.
Years later, in 1998, when Hegde was the Commerce Minister in the Vajpayee government he replied to a question on WTO. Pranab Mukherjee, who had been Hegde’s predecessor in the Narasimha Rao regime and who had attended the crucial talks in Marrakesh, stood up and corrected the minister. “It seems the Commerce Minister is speaking from the other side”, said a smiling Hegde, conceding that Mukherjee was perhaps right. “Whichever side we may be in, Mr Minister, the mindset of governance does not change”, said Mukherjee. This repartee reflected the highest standards of parliamentary practice. Alas, in recent years, bonhomie, repartee and humour have been somewhat missing in Parliament.
Narendra Modi may like to add to the train of reforms he is attempting by taking a leaf from the Westminster. Since the Harold Macmillan days in 1961, a weekly Prime Minister’s Question Time is the practice whenever British Parliament is in session. Every sitting Wednesday between 12 noon and 12.30 pm the PM answers a range of questions. A member of the House of Commons can ask about anything under the sun. Normally six questions are answered. The PM does not know what questions may be asked, but he is extensively briefed by government departments in anticipation of likely subjects. It is the most raucous, entertaining session—the exchange of barbs is often referred to as a “gladiatorial contest”.
If during a sitting week the PM is away from London, a senior minister, usually the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stands in for him. MPs’ right to question is unfettered.
The brouhaha over Modi’s presence in the House could have been avoided and useful parliamentary time would not have been consumed by acrimony if India too had a Prime Minister’s question time scheduled on weekly basis.
It may be worthwhile to note that the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, in his speech on Indira Gandhi’s birth anniversary past week observed that electoral defeat does not deprive the Opposition of the attitude of challenge and confrontation. He quoted Indira Gandhi’s 1978 statement that the Opposition’s duty is to “oppose, expose and if possible, depose”. These thoughts of the head of state should act as beacon for healthy parliamentary discourse.