It is almost a year since the 16th Lok Sabha came into being. We, the people of India, had huge expectations. We kept hands folded, praying, for goodness sake and for the sake of this nation, please perform for us, the teeming millions who have high hopes on you, the elected representatives.
This was what most Indians must have prayed immediately after the BJP’s landslide victory, considering the consistency with which the previous governments had been playing with our emotions. The verdict clearly reflected the voice of the country, its need for change and hope for good governance as promised.
One may recall the bizarre incident last year in Parliament—how an MP used pepper spray to mark his opposition and to show his anger against the Telangana Bill. We also saw another MP roughing up the Rajya Sabha secretary-general and hurling abuses all around. Some others were seen shouting “phaad do, phek do (tear it, throw it)”. For the first time, the Lok Sabha telecast was stopped.
All this showed that the honourable parliamentarians were no different from the angry mob that sets a bus afire in rage to lodge a protest. These angry lots may not have a proper forum to be heard or register their protest but the people who hold membership in the country’s most esteemed political institution have not only an opportunity of being heard but are also authorised to speak, discuss, and to debate the most contentious issues.
Nonetheless this doesn’t redound to the credit of the legislators who have the responsibility of upholding and respecting the Constitution and safeguarding people’s interests at all times.
Thankfully, the first half of the current budget session did not witness such appalling scenes. The Opposition did everything to stall the session, showing its resistance to the Land Acquisition Bill.
The ruling party invited inputs from all corners for its amendment but the Opposition did not budge from its stand. So much so, it rejected the invitation of the ruling party to have a debate on the Bill. It has given much needed momentum to the Congress, an otherwise sinking ship.
Parliament is not a place for bickering and politicking but for law-making. Unlike other days, the last day in the Rajya Sabha proved to be fruitful. The last-minute negotiations, secret meetings and phone calls with the Trinamool Congress and other regional parties helped the government get clearance at least for the mines and coal Bills. The government was able to put across the perspective from which it viewed both the Bills, which had huge potential of generating funds.
The government also accepted some suggestions the parties gave about the Bills. The Congress and the Left parties were bent on disrupting the proceedings, without caring for the cost it involved, shunning the discipline the Constitution and people expect from them. Remember the representatives of the then UPA government talking about the cost involved in stalling a session in Parliament. They have forgotten what they preached.
It may not be feasible to find as to how much Parliament costs, although different studies conclude differently. The Centre for Media Studies pegged the cost at around `10,000 crore for 2009—10 times more than what the Election Commission spent on conducting elections that year. The figures must have inflated considering the hike in salaries and other allowances after 2010. Can the country afford such a colossal waste of resources?
Cost is one factor. Productivity is another. It has deteriorated since the 10th Lok Sabha, when only 9.58 per cent of the time allotted was wasted due to disruptions compared to 39 per cent during the 15th Lok Sabha.
Debates and discussions, the raison d’être of Parliament, have lost their relevance. The 15th Lok Sabha remained a black spot in India’s history and has been dubbed as one of the least productive sessions. Of 289 Bills that were introduced, 70 lapsed, the highest figure since Independence. Only 177 Bills could see the light of day. Although the winter session of the 16th Lok Sabha showed an improved productivity of 105 per cent, Rajya Sabha witnessed a decline in productivity (59 per cent). Handicapped by its minority status in the Rajya Sabha, the ruling government opted for an easier-and-a-less-popular ordinance route for pursuing its reforms agenda. The first half of the budget session, where the ordinances were debated, was also characterised by frequent disruptions in the Rajya Sabha. The last day was, however, different.
Even though the government has the option of convening a joint session, at least for considering Bills passed by the Lok Sabha rather than re-promulgating the ordinances that failed to get a nod in the Rajya Sabha, it would still be advisable to adopt a more holistic approach while tackling the Opposition.
One, the government should invest its time in building a consensus. The Mines and the Coal Bills are a good precedent. Two, the presiding officers of both Houses must act prudently and proactively to ensure strict compliance of rules and procedures for proper functioning of Parliament. They shouldn’t shy away from taking disciplinary action against MPs, if needed. Three, the parliamentary panels could develop a code of conduct for MPs and any violation should be handled appropriately. Any disruption or members entering the well of the House should be tackled by penalising them followed by an extension in the working hours.
Four, the media shouldn’t always showcase disruptions and negative incidents. Parliamentary debates and discussions have shifted to TV screens, which have become a forum for the erring member to justify his behaviour in Parliament. Unruly behaviour must not offset a good speech. Five, there is urgent need for reforms in rules of business. For instance, over the years, the question hour has lost its productivity. The government should make efforts to revive its sanctity, which can be used for not only reducing dissent but also clearing doubts and comprehending policy matters. Last but not the least, the Opposition must not forget the larger and wider role it can play—which boils down to “effective criticism” to keep a check on corruption and defective administration, promoting “rational argument” with an aim to serve people. Disruption is not a way of expressing rage against a Bill. It shows the nation in a bad light. Dialogue must not end at the altar of selfish interests and bad intentions.