Parliament, the Women's Reservation Bill and Congress-BJP ties in the House

MANEESH CHHIBBER: As Parliamentary Affairs Minister, what is your primary concern in the new Lok Sabha?

I suppose my primary concern is that the Lok Sabha sets new standards in its functioning. As the Prime Minister has said, the mandate of the people is clear and the people do expect something from Parliament. We’ve been doing our assigned work but the number of days and hours spent in transacting business has been coming down over the years. The sound of democracy has prevailed over the reason of democracy. That is what we have to change. It will be our aim, while taking the Opposition along, to meet the expectations of the people. The Prime Minister said that we hope to make a new beginning in Parliament. When we had the last short session in early June, the election of the Speaker went off extremely well. There was total cooperation between the government and the BJP and other Opposition parties — they said they’d play a constructive role as the Opposition. This week, we begin the main Budget session. The two Houses will meet on July 2, and they will adjourn on August 7. The primary business would be the passing of the Budget and we would like to take up other legislation too. A very important Bill is the Women’s Reservation Bill. I’m not very sure it will be taken up because it is with the Standing Committee on Personnel, Law and Justice. The other important legislation we have is the one related to amendments in the Land Acquisition Act. There is a totally changed opinion in the country now about the right of the government to acquire land. The position is that the farmers must have their due share from the proceeds that follow from any economic activity on that land. Along with that is the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill—those were passed by the Lok Sabha towards the end of the last session but in the Rajya Sabha, the Bills could not be presented and have, therefore, lapsed. We are very keen to bring these Bills to the House immediately.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: At this forum, some BJP leaders have complained that the Congress did not reach out to them during the last Lok Sabha on important issues, particularly the nuclear deal. Will you now take steps to reach out to the Opposition?

It will be our endeavour to see that such a perception, if it exists, does not persist any longer. However, if you look at the records of the 14th Lok Sabha, in the very first session, I had the chance to present the motion of thanks to the President after his address to the two Houses. I could not do that. Even as the Prime Minister was introducing the ministers to the House, which is a formal function, he was obstructed. So it’s wrong to say the government did not reach out to the BJP. The last time, I feel, the difference in the number of members between the BJP and Congress was small. The BJP thought that with the Shining India campaign, they had convinced the people to give them another term. They did not succeed. Perhaps they could not reconcile to that situation. This is the genesis of the relationship between the government and the Opposition in the last Lok Sabha. This time they understand the mandate of the people. Though we don’t have an absolute majority, the mandate of the people is quite clear. This has been appreciated and accepted by BJP. And that is the qualitative difference in their perception, between then and now.

COOMI KAPOOR: Why is it taking so long to set up parliamentary committees? Usually by now, the standing committees should have been formed.

This is a long exercise. We have 24 department-related standing committees—8 are headed by members of the Rajya Sabha, 16 by members of Lok Sabha. This time, there are 302 new members in the House, which is unprecedented. We write to each one of them, seeking their preferences. Then the Lok Sabha Secretariat informs the parties, according to their strength in the House, of their numbers in a particular committee and they have to chose members accordingly. Then there is the issue of who heads the committees and which party. For example, Congress will head six, BJP three.

COOMI KAPOOR: Who heads the Public Accounts Committee?

By convention, the Public Accounts Committee goes to the major Opposition party. The Estimates Committee goes to the ruling party, or the ruling alliance. Same goes for the Public Undertaking Committee.

Subhomoy Bhattacharjee: There was a debate in the last Lok Sabha on whether or not sessions of the committees should be made public. What is your view on it?

I think it will be better if they are not made public. Earlier, proceedings of the two Houses were not televised. But once the proceedings began to be televised, we found that people want to be seen on television back home, raising issues of their constituencies which, in fact, may not be within the jurisdiction of Parliament or the Government of India. The committee system has been good for the parliamentary system. In Parliament, we do take party lines in opposition to personal views. But in these committees, people have cut across party lines and worked for a common purpose.

MANEESH CHHIBBER: You were chairman of the committee that probed the cash-for-query issue. Thereafter, we saw money being flashed in the Lok Sabha just before the confidence vote last July. What steps are you taking to ensure that money does not change hands?

When I was chairman of the select committee constituted to look into allegations against some members who were charged with accepting financial considerations for raising questions in Parliament, it was a very difficult time in my political career—we had to take the decision to recommend the expulsion of 11 members from the House. That decision was taken to set a precedent that should serve as a deterrent to members in the future. Then the bundles of currency notes were brought into the House, they were put on the table of the House. Such a practice is not acceptable in a democratic set up.

RAVISH TIWARI: What is your personal view on the proposal to increase the MPLAD funds?

I think if an MP uses this discretion judiciously, he plays an important role in the development of his area. Strictly going by the book, MPs and MLAs have no executive function to perform. But in a society like ours, you cannot divide functions so strictly. When MPs go to their constituencies, people expect them to perform those functions that are not their defined functions. If some discretion is given to the MPs or MLAs to spend some money for the development of the area, it’s not a bad idea. How they spend the money depends on the individuals. The MPLAD funds mean that an MP has the right to prioritise work in his constituency which entails costs of up to Rs 2 crore a year. The MPLAD money is part of the Plan Expenditure. If the Finance Minister announces it as part of the Budget, it will happen.

SUNNY VERMA: Many of the financial sector reform Bills like insurance and pension were written when you were Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance. Can we expect any of those to be tabled in the Budget?

We were for reforms in the insurance sector, including increasing FDI to 49 per cent. That is part of the government’s agenda—the Bill was introduced but lapsed. There was another Bill, raising the voting right of shareholders in private banks. That was obstructed and not passed last time. That, too, is on the agenda. But only the Finance Minister will take the decision.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: What was it like being a Minister of State? It has been said that an MoS is largely ignored.

Some Ministers of State did feel that senior ministers didn’t take care of them. But in my case, there were a lot of functions delegated to me. Initially, when an important file came to me and I wasn’t sure whether I should make the decision, I went to the Finance Minister and he asked me to give my own opinion. You can’t ask for greater independence than that.

COOMI KAPOOR: Sushma Swaraj, who was in college with you, has said that for a senior parliamentarian, you have taken a long time to become a Cabinet Minister. Do you feel promotion is slower in the Congress than in the BJP?

I was 35 when I became a member of the Rajya Sabha in 1984. In the party, I have held important positions. I was in the Rajya Sabha for only a year-and-a-half when I was put on the panel for vice-chairman, presiding over the Rajya Sabha, a task given to senior members. After that, I was the party whip in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. I have headed various committees. Maybe I wasn’t recognised in the government earlier but I have been recognised in the party.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: Do you feel that nowadays most young MPs come from political families whereas in your generation, a lot of people came from the grassroots?

There are some MPs whose parents were MPs. I don’t find anything wrong with that because ultimately it’s the people who elect you. Children from political families may have a slight advantage as they grow around politics. But I do find that people are coming up from Youth Congress. For the first time, genuine elections were introduced in the Youth Congress and some people elected went on to become MPs.

VAIBHAV VATS: Statistics show that 21 of the 30 MPs under 35 years belong to political families. Are we seeing some kind of democratic feudalism at work here?

I would agree that there has to be internal democracy in the party but it must not be overstretched. The party functions democratically, there is no question about that. We do not have elections within the party like you have general elections—that’s not possible. And while there might be some flaws in the grassroots elections, election to the Congress Working Committee, the highest body in the party, is truly democratic.

MANEESH CHHIBBER: Is this government going to pursue the interlinking of rivers project?

Thirty systems that could be linked have been identified. Feasibility reports have been prepared for 16 of those 30. But water is a state subject, so the Centre cannot impose anything. It acts as a facilitator and a catalyst to promote judicious use of water.

RAVISH TIWARI: One of the most convenient excuses for any Water Resources minister is that water is a state subject. How are you going to be different in this regard?

The fact remains that according to the Constitution, water is a state subject. Presently, there is no thought of amending the Constitution.

RAVISH TIWARI: But there is a Section that allows you to intervene effectively but this has never been exercised.

It is only in the case of inter-state disputes that the Government of India has the right to set up a tribunal. The tribunal gives the decision which is binding on the parties, as per the decree of the Supreme Court.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: Some of your allies in the UPA government have already started dissenting on a number of issues. How will you deal with your allies, this time, especially on economic reforms?

Dissent and differences of opinion are the essence of democracy. Our allies have chosen to be in the government and decisions are taken at the Cabinet level. They are party to every decision taken by the government.

RITU SARIN: With a clear majority in Parliament, what is on the Prime Minister’s wishlist?

In the President’s address, the government’s programme for the next five years has been delineated. But one thing that comes to my mind is Bharat Nirman and increasing telephone density so that telephones reach every corner of the country. The Food Security Bill is another important bill.

COOMI KAPOOR: Is there going to be any deadline for passing the Women’s Reservation Bill?

Earlier, whenever there was an endeavour to introduce the Bill in the House, it was obstructed. A conscious decision was taken by our last government to introduce it in the Rajya Sabha so that it does not lapse. There’s no deadline as such, but we are keen that it is passed at the earliest.

RITU SARIN: How will you increase attendance in Parliament?

We must try to ensure that more members show interest in Parliament. The best way is to work out a roster system by asking certain members to be present at a particular point of time.

VAIBHAV VATS: In the last Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee wanted to suspend some MPs for disrupting the proceedings of the House. Can we expect strict action this time?

This is the Speaker’s prerogative. A rule was initiated during Mr Chatterjee’s time that if the Speaker names members, they stand automatically suspended from the House for that day. Suspension is considered to be a very severe action which is why Mr Chatterjee did not invoke it.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: Do you think the Lok Sabha Speaker should resign from the party?

I don’t consider it necessary. What you expect is the Speaker to be impartial in the conduct of business.

Transcribed by Vaibhav Vats