Oppose and Be Damned

IN THE WINTER of 2016, as the Parliament session went into the third week of logjam over the Narendra Modi govern­ment’s demonetisation, then President Pranab Mukherjee said, “For God’s sake, do your job. You are meant to transact business. You are meant to devote your time for exercising the authority of members, particularly Lok Sabha members over money and finance.”

The former Congress leader had said, while delivering a lecture on electoral reforms on Defence Estates Day, that disruptions were totally unacceptable as people sent representatives to speak in the House. “[The] fact remains that this has become a practice which should not be acceptable at all. Whatever be the differences, we have the opportunity, to speak our mind, to speak freely and no court can interfere in what I say on the floor of the House. This type of freedom should not be misused by causing disruption,” said Mukherjee who, as Leader of the House in Lok Sabha during the Manmohan Singh government, had himself often faced the Opposition disrupting proceedings.

His advice faded into thin air, in the din of Opposition-govern­ment faceoffs. As the monsoon lashed Delhi this August, another session witnessed a washout. In the recently concluded month-long Monsoon Session of Parliament, Lok Sabha lost 84 hours, the highest in the five sessions of the current House, due to frequent adjournments as the Opposition I.N.D.I.A. bloc stalled proceedings, insisting on a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, alleging that it would lead to disenfranchise­ment of lakhs of voters. Later, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s “vote chori (stolen votes)” charge added momentum to Opposition pro­tests inside and outside the House. The disruptions left the House around merely 37 hours to function over 21 sittings, according to Lok Sabha Secretariat data. In the bedlam, the government pushed its legislative agenda, passing 12 Bills by voice vote without debate, the ayes from the treasury benches overpowering the clamour on the other side, denying the Opposition itself a platform to raise con­cerns about the legislation. The list not discussed included taxation laws, the Income Tax Bill, the National Sports Governance Bill, a Mines and Minerals amendment, and the Promotion and Regu­lation of Online Gaming Bill. In Rajya Sabha, 15 bills were passed amidst Opposition furore. Of the 419 starred questions admitted in the Lower House, only 55, the lowest in the 18th Lok Sabha, could be answered orally.

A senior Opposition MP, who had sought over 100 amend­ments to legislation, including 24 to the Income Tax Bill alone, admitted that continuous disruption often backfires on the Oppo­sition. The worst fallout, according to the MP, was that the absence of debate denied people a way of understanding what is in a Bill, which is drafted in technical parlance. At times, the government, taking note of amendments from Opposition members, brings in amendments on its own. In all, according to the MP, there may have been 200 amendments submitted by Opposition members all of which drowned in the mayhem, making way for unilateral passage of legislation. Parliament could only debate Operation Sindoor. A debate on the crucial US tariffs, following President Donald Trump announcing an additional 25 per cent in view of India buying Russian oil, eluded the House.

A day before the House adjourned sine die, the ruckus went into a crescendo over the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, proposing that a sitting minister, chief minister or even the prime minister can lose their position within a month if arrested or de­tained for 30 consecutive days for an offence that carries a jail term of five years or more. Tempers ran high, slogans reverberated and torn copies of the Bill flew towards at Home Minister Amit Shah as he introduced three Bills—the Constitution (130th Amend­ment) Bill, the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, and the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill. According to an Opposition MP, unlike in the case of Bills passed without discussion, after just 10-15 minutes of debate in which less than six Opposition MPs participated, the government was forced to refer the Constitution Amendment Bill to a Joint Par­liamentary Committee (JPC). A Constitution Amendment Bill requires the backing of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting in the House and a majority of the total membership of the House. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has a simple majority in both Houses.

Several of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc constituents, however, are plan­ning to boycott the JPC, dubbing it a futile exercise. The Trin­amool Congress (TMC), Samajwadi Party (SP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and the Shiv Sena (UBT) have decided against joining the JPC, leaving it with around half the 14 Opposition members in the 31-member panel. Congress, too, started vacillating. Its absence would deny the Opposition even the opportunity to re­cord its dissent formally. In a committee significantly dominated by NDA, the governing side would have an overwhelming edge. This would not be the first time an Opposition is taking such a stance. When the first JPC was formed in 1987 to probe the Bofors scandal, the Opposition boycotted it, saying it was dominated by members of the ruling Congress. When the report was tabled in Parliament, the Opposition rejected it.

Every Prime Minister from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi has castigated disruptive tactics inside the House. Every Opposition has clung to them, believing they have political resonance.

“Here, we have sat in this Parliament, the sovereign authority of India, responsible for the governance of India. Surely, there can be no higher responsibility or greater privilege than to be a mem­ber of this sovereign body which is responsible for the fate of the vast number of human beings who live in this country,” Nehru had said on the last day of the first Lok Sabha in 1957.

Ahead of the 2024 Budget Session, Modi had said that MPs who are “compulsive disruptors of Parliament” should introspect what they did in the preceding 10 years. “They should perhaps ask 100 people in their areas, no one would remember the names of the disruptors… Even their own constituents won’t know what they did. Those who showed concern for people’s issues would have done democracy a good turn and will be remembered by the people.” Three weeks into disruptions in the recent Monsoon Ses­sion, he is reported to have said at an NDA parliamentary meeting. “Jo apni kabr khodein, unhein hum kyon rokein (Why should we stop those who are digging their own graves)?”

Modi’s predecessors had also condemned disruption in Parlia­ment. The United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) Manmohan Singh called the stalling of House proceedings a negation of democracy. BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee disapproved of members storming the well of the House.

The Budget Session of 2015, the year after Modi became prime minister, recorded the highest percentage of working hours—122 per cent in Lok Sabha and 101 per cent in Rajya Sabha—in comparison with the previous 20 sessions. During this period, the longest time lost in a session was under the Congress-led UPA when, in the winter of 2010, the BJP-led Op­position’s demand for a JPC probe into the 2G spectrum scam paralysed both Houses, ending up in 94 per cent time lost in Lok Sabha and 98 per cent in Rajya Sabha. Overall, the productive time of the 15th Lok Sabha over five years stood at 61 per cent, the worst performance of the Lower House in more than 50 years, according to PRS Legislative Research.

BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, who was minister of state for Parliamentary Affairs thrice—once in the Vajpayee govern­ment and twice under Modi—says that when a session gets washed out due to disruptions, it is the Opposition that stands to lose. “The government goes about its legislative business but the Opposition misses the chance of registering its position on a Bill,” he says. Recalling instances when the two sides reached an unwritten understanding, through backroom talks to agree on the passage of a par­ticular Bill with discussion, putting a pause on the ruckus, he says in recent times, the Opposition has made it a trend to ensure the washout of an entire session.

In the UK, where parliament meets over 100 days a year, opposi­tion parties get 20 days when they decide the agenda for discussion in Parliament, says Chakshu Roy who heads legislative and civil engage­ments at PRS. The main opposition party gets 17 days and the remaining three days are given to the second-largest opposition party. “Usually, decisions of the House passed on opposition days are not binding on the government and are an opportunity for the opposing parties to focus national attention on issues they deem crucial. Canada also has a similar concept of opposition days,” says Roy. In countries such as the US, UK and Canada, legislatures are in session throughout the year. At the beginning of the year, a calendar of sitting days is formalised and legislative and other business programmed in. On average, the sitting days of these legislatures range between 100 days (as with the US Congress) and 150 (with the British parliament) days a year. In India, Parliament sittings average around 60 days a year.

“Disruptions in Parliament have been common in the past also. Parliament should be a forum for discussions, not disrup­tions. It does not help the Opposition at all, but draws criticism from the general public. The common citizen feels it is a waste of public money,” says Yogendra Narain, who was secretary general of Rajya Sabha from 2002 to 2007.

Parliamentary disruption is an old story, one that gains or loses approbation depending on which side of the aisle one sees it from. But once the dust settles, does it bring political dividends or does it boomerang?

Amit ShahBillsBJPMonsoon sessionOppositionParliamentpoliticsRahul Gandhi