PDT Achary, former secretary general of Lok Sabha, has seen several governments and prime ministers in his 40-year-long career in Parliament. As someone who has seen the evolution of India’s parliamentary culture from close quarters, Achary is an authority on matters related to legislative decorum.
He shares with TNIE a ringside view of the ongoing tussle between the Kerala government and Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, the correct yardsticks to assess the performance of an MP, and a few memorable moments from Parliament.
Edited excerpts
The tussle between the state government and Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has reached a turning point, with the governor referring seven of eight pending bills to the President…
The governor sent the bills to the President after two years. That itself is against the Constitution. It [keeping on hold for two years] is not permissible under the Constitution. As per article 200, the options are either to give assent, send it back, or refer to the President. The governor can send it back along with a message requesting the assembly to reconsider the bill. In this case, I think the governor is simply taking revenge.
What next?
Once a bill is sent to the President, as in this case, she can either give or refuse assent. Or, if there are other recommendations, s/he can send it back to the assembly to reconsider the same through the governor. If the President wants to make some changes in the bill, s/he will ask the governor to send it back to the assembly. If the assembly, after reconsidering the bill, sends it back in the same form, the President shall consider it. That’s what the Constitution says.
In that case, the President is bound to sign?
The President is not bound to give assent. But, in the case of the governor, s/he is bound to sign if the government sends back the same bill.
What are the options before the state government in the current scenario?
There’s no other option before the government until the President considers the bills.
So, can we say the bills are gone for good?
To some extent, we can say that, effectively, they are done for. Though, technically, it’s a decision taken by the President, in effect, it will be a decision taken by the Union government’s home ministry.
Is it right for governors to withhold bills passed by state assemblies?
The Constitution has clearly defined the responsibilities of governors. It says that the governor can act only according to the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The governor cannot act independently. Executive function is the responsibility of the elected government entirely. The governor has no option to sit on a bill.
But, the Raj Bhavan’s version is that there is no deadline for the governor to clear bills…
The scheme of Article 200 is that the legislative process should be completed as quickly as possible. Is there a need for a timeframe as the Constitution has clearly said that the process should be completed as soon as possible?
The Raj Bhavan has attributed the delay to a slew of complaints it received against the bills. Does the argument hold merit?
The constitutionality of a particular legislative measure or an executive action is to be looked into by the court, not the governor. That is not the domain of the governor or the President. It is the domain of the judiciary. The judiciary alone will decide whether a measure is constitutionally valid or not.
The tussle between governors and state governments are often seen in opposition-ruled (non-NDA) states. Is this a new trend?
Yes, this is a new trend. It is common for governors to have some differences of opinion with chief ministers from other parties. However, it is uncommon for governors to sit on bills for two or three years. This is against the Constitution.
The Kerala governor once said that he had withdrawn his pleasure in a minister continuing in office. Does he have such a right?
No. The governor cannot act on his whims and fancies.
Don’t governors know about the provisions?
I have no reason to believe that the governor doesn’t know about these (smiles).
Governors are appointed as per the political interests of the Central government. How can we expect a governor to be like a rubber stamp?
That is an extreme view. Nobody expects the governor to act like a rubber stamp. But he has to function within the constitutional framework. The Constitution says the governor shall discharge his functions in accordance with it.
There is a view that the governor system should be abolished. Why should we have a governor if he doesn’t have much of a role?
It may be a requirement of the system. We are in a federal system with strong unitary features. Constitutional experts call it quasi-federal. In my opinion, it is reluctant federalism (laughs).
The PM has put forward the idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’. How do you view it?
We had this in the 1950s. Towards the end of the ’60s, there was political instability. State assemblies had to be dissolved and governments fell. That cycle got broken there. Theoretically, it is okay. But there are some constitutional issues, as it is the prerogative of a state government to advise the governor to dissolve the assembly. The Central government has no role in that.
Centre argues that it will reduce costs...
The cost is incurred by two agencies —the Election Commission (EC) and political parties. There is no empirical evidence to prove that the costs incurred by the EC went up abnormally. Will political parties utilise their savings from one election for building roads or factories?
There is a perception that the BJP government is a centralising force. How true is this?
The centralising tendency has always been there. In fact, our Constitution, which has very strong unitary features, facilitates it.
You have seen many governments since 1970. How has parliamentary culture evolved over the years?
Earlier, there used to be great debaters, and the level of discussion was high. Later, there was a levelling as democracy deepened. The class that was kept away came forward. Naturally, the whole style of discourse changed. This was to happen in a democracy, and there is no point in being value judgemental here.
Four decades in Lok Sabha is a long time. You must have seen some 10 PMs…
When I joined, Indira Gandhi was the PM, and there was a lot of uncertainty. But, in the 1971 election, she had two-thirds majority, and from then, a new phase of Indian politics started. Nehruvian tradition, which was noted for its unshakeable faith in the democratic norms, had ended.
How do you recall the Emergency period?
It was not a natural consequence. There was unrest with the Navnirman Movement in Gujarat and Jayaprakash Narayan’s emergence in Bihar. After the 1971 war, the economy suffered, there was an oil crunch. Indira Gandhi took a calculated risk. It would have been a painful decision for her.
You have seen many PMs from close quarters. Who was the best parliamentarian among them?
Indira Gandhi was not a great orator. Vajpayee was one, but after becoming PM, he started delivering written speeches, much to the chagrin of many. Rajiv Gandhi was a good speaker though he was not in politics earlier. If he saw a flaw in policies, he would correct it. But he faltered in instances such as the Shah Bano case. But then, no man is perfect.
How was the performance of the first Janata party-led coalition government at the Centre?
It was a coalition of different parties that were victims of the Emergency. There was infighting right from the start, including over electing the prime minister. After Jayaprakash Narayan finally announced Morarji Desai’s name, he remarked: “We cannot have more than one prime minister!” The infighting just worsened with time. However, they did do a few good things.
There were two more tumultuous periods in Indian politics regarding formation of governments. First, the VP Singh-Chandrasekhar period, and later, the I K Gujral-Deve Gowda period. There must have been uncertainty during those periods…
Yes, there was uncertainty. Their prime ministership was more about filling the gap. After all, India is a democracy and every citizen has a right to become the prime minister. If one gets the right opportunity, one can become the PM.
What suits India better – a powerful single-party government or a multi-party coalition government?
It is not possible to give a definite answer. The government should be democratic. If the government, whether single- or multi-party, does not apply the rule of the law, there is no government.
The UPA came to power during your tenure as Lok Sabha secretary general. While UPA-I was hailed for several good works, UPA-II got billed as one of the most corrupt governments. What went wrong?
UPA-I was an experiment, so they were cautious. In UPA-II, something inexplicably went wrong. The Congress president had control over everything in the first UPA government, and everything was smooth sailing. But in UPA-II, even with the same Congress president and the same prime minister, things went awry.
Did the Left’s presence in UPA-I and absence in UPA-II make a major difference?
It is a fact that the Left was a major influence in the coalition during UPA-I. The main issue in UPA-II was corruption. Whether a one-party rule or a coalition, how the prime minister exerts control decides the fate of the government. This is the problem with a coalition. Unless you occupy a dominant slot, it wouldn’t work.
There are two types of MPs – one who actively engages in the lawmaking process, and the other who takes care of his/her constituency. In your opinion, who is an ideal MP?
The role of MPs includes passing of the budget and enacting the laws. According to me, the performance of MPs can be assessed only through debates in the House. How you present your case, how articulate and effective one is are the yardsticks to assess an MP.
But, generally, MPs are assessed based on their presence at inaugural functions in their constituencies or appearances in photo-opportunities. Aren’t such yardsticks inherently flawed?
An MP must be evaluated on the basis of his or her performance in parliamentary debates… not on the basis of the number of functions s/he participated in one’s constituency.
Who among MPs from Kerala were able to make their presence felt?
C M Stephen was a very effective leader. He was a good orator, a tall figure with an imposing personality and a stentorian voice. K P Unnikrishnan was also a good orator. P K Vasudevan Nair, too.
From an era when prime ministers took special care to attend Parliament sessions, we have reached a time when attending the House itself is not deemed important. How would this shift affect the parliamentary system?
It’s a fact that a lot of changes have happened. It depends on the individual who becomes the prime minister. Even Indira Gandhi was not a regular in the House. Nehru was keen on attending sessions, as he was building up a system. That kind of involvement was not seen after him.
So, in a way, Indira Gandhi can be termed an apt predecessor of Narendra Modi as far as attending parliamentary proceedings are concerned?
(Laughs) I just mentioned that it used to happen during her time as well. I would rather not comment on the other part (smiles).
We have seen MPs from Kerala struggling to speak in English, while those from Tamil Nadu speak in their mother tongue without any hesitation. How crucial is the role of language in the House?
It plays a very significant role. English is not our mother tongue. Most of our politicians from Kerala can speak effectively in Malayalam. But it isn’t easy for them to suddenly switch over to English. No point in blaming them.
Can’t they just speak in Malayalam?
The trouble is Malayalis pretend that we are well-versed in English. We are worried that not speaking in English could invite ridicule.
Who would you rate as the best Speaker, one who was able to run the House in the most effective manner?
Most of them were heavyweights in politics. Right from G V Mavalankar and Ananthasayanam Ayyangar… they were like supermen. Their contributions were immense. Their rulings are relevant forever. Later on, there was Sanjiva Reddy. He had an interesting strategy to lighten the mood. Whenever there was pandemonium in the House, he would ask everyone to sit down. Then, he would call upon someone saying, “Now, I will allow you to shout.” That would make everyone laugh.
Somnath Chatterjee was the Speaker when you became the Lok Sabha Secretary General. How was that experience?
He was a barrister with thorough knowledge in law. He was able to effectively control the House. Once, when somebody pointed out that the prime minister may not like something about an issue that was being discussed, he retorted: “Why would I care about the prime minister? I am the Speaker of the Lok Sabha!” That was his signature style (smiles). Once he even cancelled an official delegation to Australia because he couldn’t agree with the fact that it would entail security checks of the Speaker. “I am the Speaker of India, which is the largest democracy in the world. If they don’t trust me, and if they think that I am a security risk, then I better not go.” That was his line of reasoning.
Recently, a new Parliament building was inaugurated. There was criticism about it being like a religious ceremony, especially the installation of the Sengol…
The idea of a Sengol is a sign of monarchy. In a democratic parliament, it becomes very incongruous. Moreover, there was no such Sengol handed over to Nehru by Mountbatten. I don’t know whose idea it (Sengol) was, and what it symbolises in a democratic House.
The list of unparliamentary words has been on the rise these days. Even commonly used words like ‘corrupt’, ‘inefficient’, and ‘hypocrisy’ have become unparliamentary…
There’s a complaint that many commonly used words are included in the list. It’s for the Speaker to decide.
In your 40 years of life in Parliament, what’s the most memorable incident?
The most memorable one is the culmination of the 1971 war. Pak army had surrendered, and Indira Gandhi made the announcement. The MPs started jumping with joy, standing on the desk and throwing papers. Such an expression of happiness was an unprecedented scene in Parliament. It’s still deeply etched in my mind. The MPs behaved like children. But Indira Gandhi was cool, calm and composed. She said, “The war has ended, and the light has come back. Now think about those lives whose light has been lost forever.”
What about the 2001 Parliament attack?
That was another significant instance. We were all inside. I was in the library. Many MPs were also present. When the firing was heard, we first thought it was a shot from an air gun to scare birds. That’s when someone informed me that terrorists were shooting. We could see their attack from CCTV visuals. It was the CRPF contingent that finally shot down the attackers. A bullet from the terrorist had even breached the main gate. It was a scary situation.
TNIE team: Cithara Paul, Anil S, K S Sreejith, Sovi Vidyadharan, M S Vidyanandan, Vincent Pulickal(photos), Pranav V P (video)