The functioning of Parliament is not to govern but to criticise. Its criticism, too, is directed not so much towards a fundamental modification of the government’s policy as towards the education of public opinion.~Ivor JenningsIvor Jennings’ apt formulation, made in 1939, starkly reflects how an errant Indian Parliament has become non-functional with logjams, gagging, suspensions and expulsions. Let alone dereliction in criticising, it does not even fit Thomas Carlyle’s description of the British House of Commons as a talking shop. In the ongoing winter session of parliament, 143 MPs have so far been suspended, reflecting a resolute and coordinated ousting of the opposition which perilously challenges Indian democracy. Former British prime minister Anthony Eden (1955-57) commented in 1960, “Of all the experiments in government, which have been attempted since the beginning of the time, I believe that the Indian venture into parliamentary government is the most exciting”, meaning it began well.Jawaharlal Nehru had underlined that the “parliamentary system requires not only stout opposition, not only forceful expression of opinions and views but an essential basis of cooperation between the opposition and the government”. W.H. Morris-Jones stressed that parliaments introduced a new element of representation in government. That implies representation by both the government and the opposition. The principle must be respected by the presiding officers running the affairs of elected bodies. Obviously, the representative body of 1.4 billion people is now severely remiss in performing its basic function.Claiming the originIn the UK, points out Morris-Jones, parliaments appeared four centuries before any notion of democracy began to emerge. Normally, the model parliament summoned in 1295 by King Edward I is considered the beginning of parliament, though it was not democratically elected.The foundation of the Westminster parliamentary system in India is inspired by the experience with the British-initiated elected bodies with limited representation, the Constituent Assembly noted it unambiguously. Recent Indian researches, however, claim Indian parliamentary traditions to the Sabhas and Samitis of the Vedic and post-Vedic periods. These two bodies had a significant influence on the decision-making by the kings, who many a time were elected. The Rigved even prescribed that a king needed to be accepted and respected only if he worked in the public interest.Aurobindo said Manu laid down that an unjust and oppressive king should be killed by his own subjects like a mad dog. The Arthashastra argues that the King on coronation took an oath to serve the people and he used to abide by the assemblies. Nehru argues in Glimpses of World History that there was no divine right of kings, no autocratic power. And if the king misbehaved, his people had the right to remove him and put another in his place. Nitisara of Shukracharya comments, “Public opinion is more powerful than the king as the rope made of many fibers is strong enough to drag a lion”, said Nehru. The rise of ganarajya as a system of government in the post-Vedic period is cited as the precursor of the parliamentary tradition in India.Grammar of anarchyThe systematic bedlam of today, a systemic aberration, begs the question if we are running the system well enough for the electorate. The role of the government of the day, which calls the shots; the opposition, which is unprepared in substance and comes prepared to play to the gallery in the era of electronic media exposure, are both responsible. Sushma Swaraj, a two-time NDA Union minister, admitted in 2011 that various state units pressured the BJP parliamentary party to adjourn parliament and each day strategies would be made to stall its proceedings even without a definite issue.Shekhar Gupta had observed that due to the BJP strategy, the UPA was sliding into paralysis and questioned if the opposition would want that to happen to the NDA. Partisan presiding officers complete the story of what B.R. Ambedkar warned the nation against in his penultimate day speech in the Constituent Assembly – turning the august institution into a ‘grammar of anarchy’.Whether or not other parties and leaders in opposition follow a similar organised strategy to disrupt parliament, it is happening regularly.Some of the 141 suspended MPs sit in protest outside parliament. Photo: Video screengrab/X/@KBanerjee_AITCThe presiding officersLet alone negotiating a strategy with the opposition benches for smooth functioning, the presiding officers of the two houses are summarily suspending the members for the entire session. Obviously, the impartial and efficacious conduct of the proceedings of the houses is in peril. Are the chairman of the Rajya Sabha (vice president of India) and the speaker of the Lok Sabha playing partisan cards? The Westminster tradition of the speaker of the House of Commons resigning from her/his party has not been followed in India. Yet, G.V. Mavalankar, M.A. Ayyangar and Hukum Singh left healthy precedents behind them. Indira Gandhi opted for partisanship. Partisanship by both the presiding officers has been pushed beyond all limits today.Obviously, the analysis does not include the first Modi term reflecting the extent of partisanship of the chairs. Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankar is frequently on his feet reprimanding the opposition MPs and instantly expunging their remarks; forgetting the dignity of his office. Such a sight does not present a healthy picture of parliamentary functioning in India.Also Read | Over 14 Crore Voters Without a Voice in Lok Sabha: Calculating the Cost of Suspending MPsExpulsionsExpulsion of an elected member from either house is an extreme measure and if not done prudently, it shows a brazen disregard of the popular will. It is apposite here to recall the first such controversy from the provisional Parliament of H.G. Mudgal of the Congress party in 1951. Uncomfortable at the complaint that Mudgal had taken Rs 1,000 each on two occasions from the Bullion Merchants’ Association to ask questions in parliament, Nehru constituted a committee to investigate and forwarded its recommendation indicting him to speaker Mavalankar. However, finding his expulsion imminent, Mudgal resigned.The recent expulsion of opposition Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra has raised the eyebrows of constitutional experts. An ardent critic of the regime and the prime minister, Moitra was expelled dubiously at the recommendation of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee for allegedly taking money to ask questions. She has moved the apex court, which will hear her plea in January 2024.The road aheadThe current commotion, and subsequent mass suspensions, is due to the demand of the opposition for a statement by Union home minister Amit Shah regarding a security lapse when two men entered the Lok Sabha and opened smoke cannisters. While the police are weaving a terror case against those who are responsible for the breach, the protesting MPs are suspended for demanding a statement from the home minister! There are less than six months before the general election in May 2024. Following massive electoral victories in three north Indian states, the BJP is self-assured about returning to power. However, the road ahead for India’s parliamentary democracy appears rugged and bumpy.Ajay K. Mehra is a political scientist. He was Atal Bihari Vajpayee Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, 2019-21 and Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Evening College, Delhi University (2018).
