|
Open Page
Chewing gum and spewing venom
|
If one is to choose between chewing gum and spewing venom, the only rational choice could be the former.
|
POLITICIANS HAVE the uncanny knack and ability for creating controversies out of nothing and with great success too. Instances in this regard abound. The presence of two constables of the Haryana police outside the residence of Rajiv Gandhi led to the fall of the then Union Government led by Chandra Shekhar. More recently, the failure of Laloo Prasad Yadav and his Chief Minister wife to rise when the National Anthem was being played on the Republic Day led to the filing of a writ petition complaining of violation of fundamental duties by them.
The debate in the Lok Sabha on April 30, on the motion under rule 184 concerning the grave situation in Gujarat, by all accounts appears to have turned out to be a slanging match among different political parties and their leaders. Of course, such an outcome was not altogether unexpected, considering the political disposition of the different players. Nevertheless, it was the fond hope of many, particularly those who doggedly repose faith in the democratic functioning of our body politic and the parliamentary system that we practise, that something more meaningful, which could draw curtains on the `shameful' scene of Gujarat, would emerge.
If one has regard to the profound nature of the issue, many of the arguments and the statements of the participants in the debate may not appear to bear much relevance to it. Indeed, reference to personal habits that are normally not found to be objectionable cannot be said to bear any relation to the issue. Newscasters on TV networks and newspapers reported statements of two Ministers, George Fernandes and Uma Bharati, referring to the Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi, chewing gum in the House. The truth or otherwise of the statement is not so much the issue. The public perception of the level of interaction and bonhomie among the dignitaries of different parties being what it is, it is difficult to visualise the Leader of the Opposition offering gum to the two distinguished Ministers before popping one into her mouth, for anyone to be able to say with certainty that the lady was in fact chewing gum.
Be that as it may, even taking the statements of Ministers at their face value, what intrigues one is the purpose of the reference to the Leader of Opposition chewing gum. Is chewing gum considered something opposed to the swadeshi spirit, or is it deemed to be breach of `Hindutva' and the philosophy underlying it or was it the concern for maintenance of decorum in Parliament?
Viewed with disfavour
Generally speaking, chewing of gum in an official ambience is viewed with disfavour. In some cases it is even considered a disrespectful demeanour. For instance, schools all over forbid chewing of gum in the classroom. In churches throughout the world, chewing of gum during a mass or prayer session is considered objectionable and even blasphemous. Interestingly, Singapore by a piece of legislation known as Prohibition of Imports (chewing gum) Order totally prohibits import of chewing gum and thereby use of gum for chewing in the country. Courts in some countries prohibit gum chewing in the court halls.
Speaking of Parliaments and legislative bodies, some like the U.S. House of Representatives expressly prohibit eating as also smoking, drinking in the House. Though there does not appear to be any specific provision with respect to chewing gum, where eating is prohibited it should perhaps follow by implication that chewing of gum is also a taboo. In the U.S., the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act included in 1939 `chewing gum' in the list of food items. It is presumably so because more than 50 per cent of what constitutes a piece of gum as marketed, containing sugar and other additives, is in fact swallowed. Though no specific rule is traceable, the recognised convention in the U.K. prohibits eating, drinking and smoking in the Houses of Paraliament.
In India, Rules of Parliamentary Procedure deal with prescription regarding code of conduct. Rule 349 sets out the rules to be observed by members in the House. While one of the rules prohibits smoking, there is no express prohibition of eating or chewing gum. The spirit underlying the rules being that the members should refrain from conduct which is against the dignity and decorum of the House, there may not be a need for every objectionable act to be expressly forbidden. According to the statement of Uma Bharati, reported in one of the dailies, `there is no harm in chewing gum, we also have lavang and elaichi (cloves and cardamom)'. It seems from this that chewing gum is per se not objectionable. Considering the nature of activity in Parliament, chewing gum by members who are not addressing the House might have its own advantages. For one it might not allow the chewer to slip into slumber. It may even refrain one from speaking out of turn.
Reverting back to the debate itself, the seriousness of which cannot be lost sight of, it is useful to recall the motion which states "This House expresses its grave concern over the failure of the administration in ensuring the security of the minority community in various parts of the country, specially in Gujarat, and urges the government to take effective steps to restore confidence of the minority communities and to protect them."
Going by the plain language of the motion one cannot but wonder why plain facts reflected therein should give rise to acrimony witnessed in the over 16 hours long marathon debate. Though nothing could be more important than to provide succour, psychological and material, to the victims of communal violence not much attention appears to have been devoted to the specifics except that the Prime Minister announced a grant of Rs. 150 crores to Gujarat as a package. At the end of the day there was no consensus on identifying the causes and the urgent action needed to eliminate them. Viewed from such a perspective, if one is to choose between chewing gum and spewing venom, the only rational choice could be the former.
V.R. REDDY
Former Addl. Solicitor General
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
