The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Needed, a constructive Opposition

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Mar 23, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Needed, a constructive Opposition

By Era Sezhiyan

It is unfortunate that instead of attacking the misrule of the Government and its undemocratic actions, the BJP members are assaulting the basic existence and functioning of Parliament itself.

THE MISUSE of the office of Governor and indiscriminate action under Article 356 (imposition of President's Rule) to suspend State Assemblies and destabilise State Governments are nothing new. The 1967 general elections saw the Congress monopoly challenged in several States. It started in Rajasthan where the Congress got only 88 of the 183 seats. The United Front (Samyukt Vidhanayak Dal) that included the Jana Sangh, the Swatantra Party, the Samyukta Socialist Party, and Independents was formed with 93 MLAs under the leadership of Maharawal Luxman Singh. When Governor Sampurnanand (who was earlier Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) found that the SVD had a majority, he refused to count the MLAs. On March 4, 1967, he called Mohan Lal Sukhadia to form the government on the ground that the Congress was "the largest party in the House." There were strong protests in the media and from the Opposition. The swearing-in ceremony of Sukhadia was scheduled to take place on March 14. But on March 13, the Governor recommended dissolution of the Rajasthan Assembly. However, the Union Government decided to suspend the Assembly.

The President's Address to the first session of the fourth Lok Sabha was delivered on March 18. Normally on this day Parliament deals only with routine business. However, on the Opposition's insistence Speaker Neelam Sanjiva Reddy allowed a discussion onthe serious situation in Rajasthan. The discussion took place for two days.The inert Government did not come forward to get the affirmative vote on suspension of the Rajasthan Assembly as prescribed by the Constitution and allowed the lapse of the suspension after two months. Meanwhile, Sukhadia managed to induce some independents to his side and formed the Ministry in April 1967.

The period between 1967 and 1971 was the worst in the political history of India as far as the misuse of the office of Governor and indiscriminate imposition of President's Rule are concerned. During this period, there were 17 cases of presidential proclaims, of which eight took place after the split in the Congress. In Rajasthan and Manipur, the Assemblies were put under suspension to allow the Congress to come back to power. In Uttar Pradesh, the Assembly was first suspended and as the Congress could not manipulate the necessary strength, it was dissolved. In Haryana, Bihar and Pondicherry where the Congress had no chance whatsoever of forming a government, the Assemblies were dissolved instantly. In West Bengal and Punjab, President's Rule was not imposed as the Congress was able to set up minority governments of defectors.

It is to the credit of the Opposition in Parliament that it took up each case and initiated a full debate under one or other of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure to expose the misuse of the office of Governor and discriminatory imposition of President's Rule.

On November 15, 1967, Nath Pai (Praja Socialist Party) moved a substantive motion: "That this House disapproves of the action of the Central Government in using the institution of the Governors of the States not as [an] instrument for proper functioning of the Constitution but as agents of the party in power at the Centre, as exemplified by current developments in Bihar and West Bengal." There was a discussion for two days on that motion.

In Haryana, the Samyukta Government of Rao Birendra Singh which had a majority of 41 out of 78 was unceremoniously dismissed based on the Governor's report which said: "Even a majority of one could enable a Government to function smoothly, but there is no certainty of majority when members change sides so frequently." On the same day — November 21 — as the Presidential Proclamation was presented to the House, Atal Bihari Vajpayee moved a substantive motion: "That this House regrets that the Government of India did not reject the report of the Governor of Haryana to the President recommending the issue of proclamation, inasmuch as the Government of Haryana enjoyed majority in the Legislature and functioned in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution." The discussion on the motion went on for the whole day.

On the very next day, November 22, Madhu Limaye (SSP) moved a no-confidence motion with the support of all the parties in the Opposition. Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Ram Subhag Singh wanted the discussion to commence immediately and the division taken on the same day. Mr. Vajpayee demanded at least three days for discussion as the scope of the motion would cover many aspects of misrule of the Government, apart from the misdeeds committed through Governors and presidential declarations. I supported him with the plea: "The entire aspect of political morality of the ruling party will be discussed. It is not a question to be decided by the numerical strength." The no-confidence motion of Limaye was discussed for three days.

The Opposition raised a large array of motions and discussions at every stage in those days under one or the other provision of the Rules, without affecting the functioning of Parliament and its dignity in any manner, or causing any disrespect or discomfort to the Speaker. Marching into the well and raising full-throated slogans to stall the proceedings were unknown in those times.

It saddens me to note that the BJP and its allies have announced that they will stall the proceedings of the House till the errant Governors of Goa and Jharkhand are removed. It is to be noted that there are distinct provisions for Parliament to vote out the Union Ministry and for the removal of the President, the Vice-President, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, a judge of the Supreme Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General, a judge of the High Court, and the Chief Election Commissioner. But there is no provision to impeach a Governor.

Regarding adjournment motion, Rule 59 of the Lok Sabha states that no matter pending before a statutory authority shall be permitted if it is likely to prejudice consideration of the matter by the court. There are other avenues and rules available to Members to raise the issue against the Government, either under a substantive motion or a no-confidence motion, as has been done effectively by Mr. Vajpayee, Nath Pai, Madhu Limaye and others in the past.

It is unfortunate that instead of attacking the misrule of the Government and its undemocratic actions, the BJP members are assaulting the basic existence and functioning of Parliament itself. It is true that a no-confidence motion can be easily defeated by the Government having a majority. Nevertheless, valid criticisms and exposure of the Government's misrule by the Opposition go a long way in inducing a loss of confidence in the Government among the public. This is what the Opposition Members in the third and the fourth Lok Sabha did, which changed the course of the political history of the country.

About the degenerating norms of parliamentary deliberations, it may be noted here what a distinguished parliamentarian has said: "Very often, members feel that the only way they can be heard or noticed by the House and especially by the Press and the television cameras, is not through the quality of their intervention, but by using their lung power to the fullest. The casualty of such behaviour is not only discipline and decorum in the House, but also meaningful debate that is so essential for giving expression to the aspirations and concerns of those who elect us. The third corrective that I would like to present here is the virtue of self-discipline. Discipline and decorum in the House cannot be enforced by diktat alone, although the people certainly expect the Presiding Officers to act more firmly while conducting the business of the House. However, all of us are aware of the limitations of punitive action. Ultimately, there is no better antidote to indiscipline than self-discipline, and discipline enforced by the political party through its whips."

These wise words have come from none other than Mr. Vajpayee, who has been a Member almost continuously of either House of Parliament since 1957. He made the above observation in his article "Making parliamentary democracy deliver on its promises" in the Lok Sabha publication (2002), Fifty Years of Indian Parliament.

Further, in their 2004 Election Manifesto, the BJP and its allies promised to "raise the standards and efficacy of Parliament, State Legislatures and other elected bodies." Will they honour the assurance and take some steps to raise the standards of the efficacy of Parliament?

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

GET THE SCIENCE RIGHT IN SCHOOLS

IRA'S REALITY CHECK, THE LTTE'S TOO

Needed, a constructive Opposition

Righting a wrong

Restoring the balance

Visa row

Not viable

Unacceptable