An equal responsibility to govern

The Indian Parliament is in the throes of a political crisis. This crisis is the result of an undemocratic trend set by the persistent unruly behavior of the Members of Parliament sometime towards the end of the last century and the beginning of the new century. This era was marked by continuous disruptions of both the Houses. 

It is difficult to say as to who started the trend of disruptions, but it can be said with certainty that all major political parties did it from time-to-time. It was during these years that political parties realised that the Government of the day can be brought to its knees through continuous disruptions of the Houses. Unlike speeches, disruptions do not involve any kind of study or preparation. Coming down to the well of the House and shouting slogans does not require any intellectual capital. This gave a greater role to the usually ‘silent’ backbenchers who began to ‘perform’ with a greater impact. People who could never be accused of being capable of making any kind of intellectual contribution in the House, began to participate in this exercise with gusto. This is a classic example of empowerment of the backbenchers and the ‘silent’ men in Parliament!

There is no doubt about the fact that political parties who disrupt Parliament hope to get political benefits because they are able to keep the wrong doings of the ruling Government in perpetual focus. Disruption attracts more public attention and helps to show up the Government at helm in a bad light. The BJP reaped large benefits by adopting this strategy while it was in the Opposition in the 15th lok Sabha. Now the Congress — the present opposition party — wants to do the same with a hope to benefit in the same way as the BJP had done. 

An orderly and productive Parliament session is not at all factored into this cost-benefit calculation. The Congress wants to get back to power for the next time by constantly discrediting the BJP Government through continuous disruption of Parliament on the issue of wrong doings by the Ministers. No one can deny the fact that the United Progressive Alliance Government was totally paralysed because of the non-functioning of Parliament. 

In 2014, when the BJP was in the Opposition, it was groping in the dark to formulate a credible political strategy to remain relevant in the changed political environment. But they never expected that a golden opportunity would knock their door so soon. All that they now do is to keep the national focus eternally on new scams. What was sauce for the National Democratic Alliance goose then, is sauce for the UPA gander now. In this game, passing legislations or discussing serious issues on the floor of the House do not figure at all. 

The only people who do not seem to see through this political strategy of the opposition party are the political managers of the NDA. The reactions and responses of the NDA spokespersons and Ministers give such impression in the public mind. Counter-scams, dharnas in front of the Gandhi statue and a declaration that the Opposition will be confronted in Parliament as well as on the streets hardly make up an intelligent strategy to deal with an Opposition which has got a good stick to beat the Government with. 

The BJP cannot and should not behave in the same manner as the the Congress because their roles are completely different. The BJP is expected to show some restraint, tact and wisdom. Their primary concern should be to create conditions congenial to the smooth running of Parliament. Its not only that, but the NDA seems to be playing into the hands of the opposition party. The sabre rattling being done by them will only complicate matters. 

As the political slugfest gets more and more fierce, political parties slowly forget about the people for whom the Parliament really exists. It is an undeniable fact that over the years, the charm of Parliament has waned and it is steadily losing its importance. What else can be expected if our Parliament cannot sit for five minutesIJ

It makes no sense for the Government and the Opposition to blame each other for the stalemate in Parliament which is caused by their obduracy, political myopia and fecklessness. In the past, management of Parliament was central to the life of the people. This involved informal but serious dialogues at different levels between the Government and the Opposition. This dialogue played a crucial role in resolving many issues which caused confrontations between the Government and the Opposition. 

There were initiatives from senior parliamentarians to break the logjam. These days, one does not hear about any such initiatives and dialogues. All one gets to hear is ‘my scam is better than your scam’. The Prime Minister’s office has tremendous moral authority and can unite the people. If the Prime Minister for example, meets the leaders of the Opposition with a certain regularity and talks to them frankly, it will have a great impact on the functioning of the House. There can at times be serious differences between the Government and the Opposition, but these can be resolved without breaking down the system. 

The question of resignation by Minister from different posts has always created a serious dilemma for the politicians except for lal Bahadur Shastri. It is significant that India has not produced another lal Bahadur Shastri during the 68 years of its democratic history. 

The demand for resignation of a Minister only exposes our cultural hollowness because resignation from a public office for whatever reason is an act motivated by a high sense of ethics and is voluntary. It elevates the individual to a higher plane. We remember lal Bahadur Shastri  because of the moral invincibility he achieved through his resignation. We do not remember of any other resignation by any Minister, although there were many, because they lacked  moral passion and depth. 

Against this backdrop, both the demand for and the resistance to resignations which we witness today, make us look small and inferior and highly imperfect, notwithstanding our claims to greatness in the past. 

(The writer is a constitutional expert and former Secretary General of the lok Sabha)