Rahul Gandhi could utilise his sabbaticals in India to try and read up his grandfather’s parliamentary record and learn how as LoP he can use procedure to his advantage than demands laced in anger.
During the 1962 Chinese aggression, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru gave a clarion call: “Freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might.” The failure of his regime to fathom Chinese intentions and the resultant national humiliation notwithstanding, perhaps parliamentary democracy today is similarly imperilled, not due to alien aggression but caused by the inability of our political parties to provide mature leadership and adhere to parliamentary norm and form. Disruption of Parliament began in the Rajiv Gandhi era, with Bofors becoming the centrepoint. Bofors remains an unresolved mystery. (Vishwanath Pratap Singh never cited the names which purportedly were written in a chit of paper he showed during the campaign). Ruling Congress had a massive majority. Opposition MPs resigned en masse to underscore their protest. In the Manmohan Singh eon, as leadership of principal Opposition passed on to the GenNext of BJP—Arun Jaitley in Rajya Sabha and Sushma Swaraj in Lok Sabha—there was a spurt in disruptions. The Winter Session of Parliament in 2010 was completely washed out.
Those were the days when the coal scam, CWG scam and a host of other allegations emanating from reports of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) surfaced. None of these in the following years passed the litmus of judicial scrutiny (coal scam involving Manmohan Singh was dropped by Supreme Court last week, after 16 years). During Budget Session in March this year, Congress MP Manish Tewari cited late Arun Jaitley’s statement in 2010—that disruption is a legitimate part of parliamentary tactic. Sushma Swaraj had echoed this. The difference between the Leaders of Opposition then and the LoPs now is that while Jaitley and Swaraj confined their diatribe to the Houses of Parliament, today we find Rahul Gandhi enacting cameo role in a “skit” enacted outside, within the compound of Parliament complex. When the new Parliament building had not come up, the serene statue of Mahatma Gandhi facing the Sansad Bhavan provided a convenient backdrop for protests. Now both Opposition and surprisingly even ruling NDA MPs, hold demonstrations outside the Makar Dwar. On 31 July, while both Houses dispersed due to disruptions, Independent MP from Purnia, Rajesh Ranjan (Pappu Yadav), staged a skit depicting “chanda chori” at Ayodhya. He wore saffron robes and sat on the road with a donation box, took out cash from the box and stuffed it in his pocket.
A “public thrashing” by some red topi-clad Samajwadi MPs followed in the skit. LoP Rahul Gandhi played a cameo role— he bowed before “priest” Pappu Yadav and donated money in the box. Thus, a drama of the absurd entered the annals of India’s parliamentary history. Opposition MPs have told media persons that they have little choice but to hold drama and enact skit outside as opportunity to speak inside the House is limited. Proceedings of Parliament are encumbered by Rules of Procedure. One such rule is that if any allegation is to be made it must be preceded by prior notice and accompanied by authentication. Often Speaker in Lok Sabha and Chairman of Rajya Sabha (Vice President of India) or their nominated presiding officers cite this rule and restrain members. Serious allegations surfaced in Parliament in the second Lok Sabha (195762) when Feroze Gandhi, grandfather of two present sitting Congress MPs—LoP Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra—sought to expose the Mundhra scam, which he did successfully, resulting in the resignation of Jawaharlal Nehru cabinet’s Finance Minister, T.T. Krishnamachari. Incidentally, no one pointed out that Feroze Gandhi was son-in-law of the incumbent Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sat through the debate. Feroze Gandhi placed copies of government documents— there was no reprography then, he relied on typed versions of what was purported to be a government noting. Objections were raised. Speaker M. Ananthashayanam Ayyangarruled that if an MP places a document in the House, he must authenticate it under his signature.
Ayyangar’s ruling was omnibus: it said a document obtained by an MP, “even by stealth” can be discussed if authenticated by the MP. faced in Parliament in the second Lok Sabha (195762) when Feroze Gandhi, grandfather of two present sitting Congress MPs—LoP Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra—sought to expose the Mundhra scam, which he did successfully, resulting in the resignation of Jawaharlal Nehru cabinet’s Finance Minister, T.T. Krishnamachari. Incidentally, no one pointed out that Feroze Gandhi was son-in-law of the incumbent Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sat through the debate. Feroze Gandhi placed copies of government documents— there was no reprography then, he relied on typed versions of what was purported to be a government noting. Objections were raised. Speaker M. Ananthashayanam Ayyangar This rule was invoked by late K.P. Unnikrishnan in the 7th Lok Sabha, when he took the government of Indira Gandhi to task for consideration extended to Italian business representative Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Thal Vaishet matter. (Later Quattrochi’s name surfaced in Bofors.) Ram Jethmalani in Rajya Sabha cited this rule while confronting the Atal Behari Vajpayee government after quitting as a minister as he placed some documents to drive home his point. Priyanka Vadra Gandhi submitted documents to authenticate her allegations past week after the House had been adjourned following bedlam caused by her comment. Had the senior members of her party guided their first-term, bypoll elected colleague then perhaps a disruption could have been avoided. In case of Rahul Gandhi, who unlike the light-hearted repartee relied upon by Priyanka, always seems to look angry—his allegations land as a bolt from the blue and disruption follows. Ruling party could be accommodative perhaps. But for that rapport between the two sides of the aisle is essential. This is not the case. Parliamentary Affairs Minister’s primary function is to maintain liaison with Opposition. In Nehru era, K. Raghuramiah was often referred to as “Minister for Opposition” as he was found sitting among Opposition members during heated times, trying to carve a way forward. In recent years Ghulam Nabi Azad played a similar role, though he was never spotted on Opposition benches. This trait of his was reflected in his interaction as Jammu & Kashmir’s Congress Chief Minister with Gujarat’s Narendra Modi, which Modi, as Prime Minister, lauded while bidding farewell in Rajya Sabha to the then LoP Ghulam Nabi Azad. S.M. Banerjee, who represented Kanpur as an Independent for four terms (1957-77), once recalled his initial days as MP.
A labour leader, he wanted to raise the issue of lathicharge on industrial workers in Bareilly. Law and order being a state subject, speaker Ayyangar disallowed. Crestfallen, Banerjee withdrew to the Central Hall. Feroze Gandhi, who was passing by, noticed tears in his colleague’s eyes. Kya hua, he asked. Banerjee said if he can’t raise labour issues he prefers to quit. Feroze Gandhi told him “House procedure se chalta hai. Procedures ko master karo. Kal yahi mudda uthana, not as lathicharge, but as concern for loss of Central revenue due to stoppage of production in a key revenue generating unit.” Banerjee did likewise and a half-hour discussion was allowed during which lathicharge too was discussed.
Rahul Gandhi could utilise his sabbaticals in India (in between frequent trips abroad) to try and read up his grandfather’s parliamentary record and learn how as LoP he can use procedure to his advantage than demands laced in anger.
