MPs and political parties obviously consider agitation during parliamentary proceedings their genuine function and do not regard this stalling as waste of parliamentary time and public money. However, that a Lok Sabha speaker thought it necessary to propose such drastic measures reflects the gravity of the situation. In August Chatterjee relayed public feedback on the recalcitrance of MPs, cautioning the parliamentarians, “We are increasingly being criticised, we are losing credibility as an institution.”

Dr B.R. Ambedkar, in his concluding speech at the penultimate session of the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, said: “If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, there are first things in my judgment we must do... to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means that we must abandon the methods of disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha — where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the grammar of anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”

However, Ambedkar could not have imagined their routine application in legislatures to appeal to constituencies in this era of ‘virtual politics’ and television reality shows. His comment strikes a chord today when hardly any significant issue is discussed without cantankerous sloganeering, sit-ins and walkouts by the opposition leading to stalling of the business of the Parliament. Sadly, the prime minister had to read his statement on the nuclear deal amidst continued slogan-shouting.

On an average 20 to 25 per cent of the parliamentary time is being lost during in past few years due to ‘street politics’ within the two houses. There appears to be a consensus on cantankerousness in Parliament. For, the politics of past one decade has given a chance practically to all the parties, barring only a few, to occupy both the treasury and opposition benches.

Consider. In 2006, over 40 per cent of the bills were passed in the Lok Sabha with less than one hour of debate. In two sessions in 2006 only 173 MPs in Lok Sabha actually said anything on the floor of the Parliament on legislative issues. Sadly, almost 65 per cent of MPs said nothing in Lok Sabha on a legislative issue.

Explanations offered by discerning MPs in private conversations are that committees iron out a number of details and differences, leaving only minor questions to be raised in discussions. This, however, is a partial truth, because the committee system of the Indian Parliament has been on the parliamentary reform agenda, and the MPs do find issues to stall the business of the two Houses in each session. Another facile explanation is that pandemonium breaks out when the ruling party does not provide the requisite information during the question hour to the opposition. This, by implication, indicts nearly all the parties in the Indian political spectrum.

However, a week before the Budget session of Parliament begins, it is time to ask, is the pandemonium a short cut to political mobilisation, or are these theatrics meant to serve limited political purpose, irrespective of their impact on the institution?

The writer is Ford Foundation Profe-ssor, Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia

drmehra@vsnl.com