The outcome of the vote of no confidence moved by the opposition parties in the Lok Sabha is no secret. They are not going to get the Prime Minister’s scalp. The Opposition does not have the numbers in the Lok Sabha. Yet it serves a purpose. The Opposition feels that the no-confidence motion was their last resort to get a meaningful debate on Manipur in Parliament.
Did the Opposition have no other options for a debate on Manipur other than a no-confidence motion? It could have insisted on a debate under rules of business. However, then it would have been at the mercy of the presiding officers of the two houses of Parliament and the government’s willingness.
In the Lok Sabha, it tried an adjournment motion under Rule 184 which would have entailed voting after the debate on the motion. The Treasury benches wanted the debate under a rule that would not involve voting.
In the Rajya Sabha, the Chairman did not allow a discussion under Rule 267 which permits the suspension of the scheduled business to allow time for an in-depth discussion of an urgent matter. There is no formal motion required, no voting, and no time limit to the duration of the discussion. Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar is known to have criticised such motions for having become “a known mechanism of causing disruption.” Indeed, the last instance of a discussion under this rule being accepted was on demonetisation by the then Chairman of Rajya Sabha Hamid Ansari.
Instead, in the Rajya Sabha, the government wanted the debate under Rule 167, which limits the time allotted for discussion to two-and-a-half hours. Now, some MPs from the North-East have given notice for a debate under Rule 167 to the Chairman, which entails the government's reply after a debate, the response of the mover of the motion followed by voting. It remains to be seen whether this will be allowed.
The Opposition was also insistent that Prime Minister Narendra Modi speak in the debate. With the government reluctant to agree to this pre-condition, the Opposition was perhaps pushed into moving a vote of no confidence. The Speaker has no choice once this is done but to suspend all business of the House, and take it up for discussion.
The Opposition, through the no confidence motion, has ensured that a structured debate will take place, and that it will take priority over all other business in the Lok Sabha. An assured discussion has been secured with a structured response from the Treasury benches. The debate normally takes place over two to three days with the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, replying to the debate as the last speaker on the subject defending his government. No clarifications can be sought on his reply.
This means that up to the day of the Prime Minister’s reply — i.e., the first two days — the Opposition grabs the media headlines. The effectiveness of the Opposition’s position would depend on the speakers fielded. The Opposition will obviously prioritise the Manipur issue but because of the general nature of the no confidence motion, it is free to underline the failure of the government on other fronts as well.
Normally, the opposition parties introduce a no confidence motion towards the fag end of the life of a particular Lok Sabha session, even while aware that it will be defeated. It might be recalled that the Left parties moved a no-confidence motion against the Manmohan Singh government in July 2008, barely six months before the next general election was to be announced, and against the Narendra Modi government in July 2018. Both were defeated as expected. However, what these no confidence motions achieve is to set the agenda for the upcoming general election.
Nevertheless, the no confidence motion may not be an unmitigated victory for the Opposition. If the focus of the Opposition was to somehow get Modi to speak — then he will speak but on issues which will include Manipur among many others. A no confidence motion by its general nature expressing lack of faith in the government cannot focus only on one issue. The field is open to the government to showcase what it thinks are its achievements. The issue is also no longer whether the Prime Minister should speak on Manipur or not. He must defend his government and is free to emphasise the areas he wants. In that sense, the focus will be diverted from the immediate as well as the long-term implications of the ethnic cleansing in Manipur.
Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister is a good public speaker, and now he has been handed an opportunity to speak on any issue and in any manner he likes in is reply. He does not have to limit himself to Manipur, and he makes headlines every time he attacks the Opposition by the pungency of his rhetoric. Manipur’s crisis could, thus, get buried under the political rhetoric of the government. Perhaps, the Prime Minister was waiting for just such an opportune moment which has been served to him on a platter.
Modi not only uses street language when he engages in political slugfest, but also tends to view the Opposition from the perspective of a streetfighter. The history of his public and rare parliamentary speeches show that he is not shy of stooping low — comparing a woman MP’s laughter to the laughter of a demoness in the Ramayana TV serial, alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the “only person who knows the art of bathing in a bathroom with a raincoat on”, or asking why the Gandhi family did not use the Nehru surname, “if Nehru was such a great person”. Now, he will get another opportunity to demean and heap insult on the Opposition without addressing the volatile situation in the North-East.
Manipur will continue to simmer with no political initiative in sight.
(Bharat Bhushan is a Delhi-based journalist.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH