When Parliament showcases India's institutional rot

The Oppn was merely exercising its parliamentary right to ask for division of votes in the House and that the legislations be referred to a Select Committee

"The Speaker has to abstain from active participation in all controversial topics of politics... He has not to become a partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view and thus inspire confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality."

These were the remarks of GV Mavlankar, the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, made at a conference of presiding officers in Srinagar in 1954.

We do not know if Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, who also officiates as Chairman, Rajya Sabha and his deputy in the House, Harivansh Narayan Singh, are acquainted with these words. Even if they are, it appears as though the spirit of the dictum has completely bypassed them. Some in the government may argue that they are not only ones to whom this applies – their recent predecessors too have been accused of the same.

But that noted, the events in the Upper House on September 20, especially the conduct of Harivansh, and subsequent decisions taken next day by House Chairman, Naidu, to first reject the Opposition motion expressing no-confidence in the Deputy Chairman and thereafter suspending eight Opposition members for one week have undoubtedly desecrated the “shrine” where Prime Minister Modi's "only holy book" was conceived and adopted. On his first visit to Parliament House after election as leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party in May 2014, Modi called the institution India's temple of democracy.

If this was not enough, we witnessed the Deputy Chairman’s visit to the lawns of the Parliament House complex where the suspended members sat in protest. Harivansh even carried a hamper containing tea and snacks. The result of his act was a reduction of the display of their dissent into a farce.

This is the way the powers-that-be reduce an act of political protestation into a picnic. While this was coming since 2014, and has been seen in various episodes when disagreement was silenced, this was the first instance of the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman so completely abandoning the role that Mavlankar laid out for House presiding officers.

But then, this is a sign of how values have altered. Harivansh after all often presides over a House that has a former Chief Justice of India as member. Not many decades ago, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, was Mohammed Hidayatullah, by virtue of being Vice President. He too had been a former Chief Justice, but accepted the position nine years after his retirement. In complete contrast, Ranjan Gogoi did not even have to wait for four months before being nominated to the Upper House.

Symptoms of institutional decline

Mentioning this is not a digression. These instances serve as mere symptoms of the rot that has set in within the country's institutions. What makes the handling of the Farm Bills and its aftermath worse is that the Opposition members were not even protesting in the first instance. They were merely exercising their parliamentary right to ask for division of votes in the House after the debate on the contested farm Bills and to demand that the legislations be referred to a Select Committee for further scrutiny.

There are clear guidelines in the manual, Rajya Sabha at Work, first brought out in 1996, under the tutelage of V S Rama Devi, former Secretary-General of the House, which, "elaborately and comprehensively documented the procedures and practices relating to the functioning of the Rajya Sabha since its first sitting on 13 May 1952." This book specifies: "In theory the Chair judges by the loudness of the respective cries [during voice vote as was used on September 20] whether the ayes or the noes are the more in number. In practice his decision is based on his knowledge of the balance of opinion in the House."

But further it notes: "If, however, the minority or any individual member challenges his decision, he directs the lobby to be cleared (for Division)." The Deputy Chairman, on basis of information available, was guided solely by the government in forming his understanding of the "balance of opinion". Furthermore, Opposition members, including the Akali Dal and Biju Janata Dal – the former a coalition partner till recently and the other a frequent backer of government legislative business – were categorical in demanding an electronic division of votes.

The farm Bills are not routine legislations that can be forced through Parliament violating democratic processes. The laws will impact lives of India's farmers at a time when uncertainty about personal futures is at an unprecedented high due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the way it has crippled the economy. This regime has for too long publicised its narrative that the Opposition has undermined parliamentary functioning despite which the government and presiding officers succeeded in notching several records when it comes to the business transacted.

But the government too must reach out to secure cooperation and for this its leaders have to stop portraying anyone disagreeing with the government agenda as an enemy of the people. Opposing government policies does not mean being anti-national or anti-people.

(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a Delhi-based journalist and author. His latest book is RSS: Icons Of The Indian Right. He has also written Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times (2013))

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.