Impasse in Parliament

By Rajeev Dhavan

THERE IS an impasse in Parliament. The Tehelka exposure revealed rampant corruption in defence deals. The trail spread in many different directions. Virtually everybody who was anybody was implicated. The Prime Minister's Office has spread its wings. Leaders of political parties behaved like extra-constitutional authorities - ready to corrupt even the most sensitive military deals for a price. Was the RSS running the country? As scandals go, it went beyond the arms deal scandal of 1987 in which the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was alleged to be involved. The Tehelka crisis was certainly one over which the Government could legitimately be called upon to resign. A self-respecting Government would have volunteered to do so. Even the acceptance of Mr. George Fernandes' resignation was forced by Ms. Mamata Banerjee pulling out of the Government. Since survival in power is more important than constitutional dharma, the BJP and its allies had their backs to the wall. They knew they were protected by brute majorities. The ruling NDA coalition had 291 seats out of an effective strength of 541 and with a halfway mark of 271. Eyes were turned towards Mr. Chandrababu Naidu. His Telugu Desam Party (TDP) had 29 MPs. If Mr. Naidu held firm, the Government would win the vote but be faced with a monumental embarrassment. But, the politics of moral embarrassment has little or no place in India's politics. Shame has been put on the backburner. But this was a grand opportunity to bring the Government to its electoral knees.

It is at this point that the Opposition decided to paralyse the working of Parliament to raise the stakes of political embarrassment. The course of action was to paralyse Parliament's working altogether. On March 13, 2001, the Congress(I) raised the demand that the Government should quit. On that date there was a debate taking place on farmers in the Lok Sabha. Around 5.30 p.m., the Congress(I) and other Opposition members stormed into the House. The usual slanging match, which was unworthy of parliamentary proceedings, took place. The experienced Mr. Pandian who was in the Speaker's chair adjourned the House. In the days that followed, the working of Parliament was wholly disrupted. The Government both bared its teeth and looked for an escape clause. The Opposition was challenged to table a non- confidence motion which, through Mr. Naidu's grace, the Government was bound to win. This challenge was declined by the Opposition. But an escape repute was also evolved. On March 13, the BJP spokesperson declared its preparedness for debate. Without accepting the indictment of failure of governance, action was promised. On March 15, Mr. Fernandes resigned. In an astute move, a Commission of Inquiry was ordered. But, the Opposition was relentless. The budget session came to a grinding halt.

By mid-April, the Congress(I) seemed to take the view that it would not call for the resignation of the Government during the second part of the budget session (which started on April 16). But, the impasse was not broken. Extensive meetings on April 16 did not resolve the issue. The Left parties decided to debate the issue in Parliament. Hoist on its own petard, the Congress(I) now insisted that it would allow peaceful functioning of Parliament provided (a) a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probed the Tehelka issue and (b) action, presumably prosecutorial, was promised against the persons whose conduct had been revealed by the Tehelka tapes. The Government had little difficulty in ridiculing this demand of `action first, debate later'. What was the function of Parliament if action was to precede debate under threat of disruption?

Is this really the way in which Parliament should function? Parliament occupies a special place in democratic governance? India's legislatures constantly operate under the threat of physical disruption. Vivid images of the failure of representative democracy were flashed throughout the world when the Uttar Pradesh legislature was physically torn apart amidst injuries to legislators. Microphones were used as weapons. In January 2001, the Governor of West Bengal walked home after Opposition legislators threw paper missiles and disrupted proceedings. No Parliament can function in this way. Debates in the Indian Parliament on statutes are of abysmally low quality even if the new committee system in Parliament continues to provide some scrutiny to Bills sent to Committees. Parliamentary debates cannot become a spectator sport. In the BALCO crisis, the Rajya Sabha was legitimately forced on March 12, 2001, to accept amendments to the vote of thanks. Such a manoeuvre is a legitimate parliamentary procedure used in 1980 over the dissolution of the Assemblies and in 1989 over several matters.

There can be circumstances which countenance disruption where the Government may use brute majorities to deny debate, declare an Emergency or pass draconian laws without discussion. But, for the Opposition to threaten parliamentary paralysis unless its demands for resignation or for a JPC are met defy the very basis on which the parliamentary system works. The Opposition cannot rule by ransom. It can argue, threaten public disaffection, cajole, reason, embarrass, debate and inflict defeat on the Government in Parliament. But, it cannot stop Parliament's working. This trend has gone on too long, and has culminated in the present crisis. Nothing good will come out of it. The NDA Government's gameplan is to secure the passing of the budget by a voice vote on April 23 and curtail the rest of the session - no doubt also to ease political pressure in the coming elections in five States and turn round the moral advantage. But, where does all this take us? The simple answer is nowhere. Passing a budget by voice vote is a parliamentary travesty.

The substantive issues are important. The demand for the resignation of the Government cannot be made lightly. What would the alternative be? As long as Mr. Naidu and the rest of the allies support the Government, an alternative coalition is not possible. A minority Government would be more paralysed than this Government is in the present crisis. If the idea is to force a general election, the mood and the moment elude consensus and it will anger the electorate.

The demand for a JPC requires a debate. Before 1921, the British Parliament used to inquire into crises through Parliamentary Committees. But, after the Marconi scandal revealing political interference in such probes, the new style Commission of Inquiry procedure was created in England in 1921; and, perforce, in India, effectively since 1952. It is not impossible for both inquisitions to take place at the same time. But, what would be the point? Would a JPC be more effective? It should not be overlooked that in the Bofors crisis, the Congress(I) preferred a politically manageable JPC to a Commission of Inquiry. Today, the report of the JPC on Bofors makes embarrassing reading in ways that undermine not just the credibility of that report, but also of using a JPC for investigating defence and corruption issues. This is not to suggest that only Commissions are effective and JPCs are passe. But, the reason for the request for a JPC is not to get an effective probe, but to continuously target the Government. Such a decision requires a debate.

A connected demand relates to demanding prosecutorial action against those allegedly exposed by the Tehelka tapes. But, no Opposition can dictate the terms of prosecution in this manner. Prosecution and trial by politics cannot obviate the rule of law.

The real reason for stalling Parliament is to enlarge and precipitate the continuance of the crisis. It is a disservice to democratic governance to bring Parliament to a grinding halt, paralyse its working and hold it to ransom unless demands, however justified, are met. If the institutions of democracy fail, democracy itself will fail. It is not enough to hold periodic elections. The institutions for which elections take place must work effectively.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Further into space
Next     : A neglected minority