The House needs new rules

It is not a handout. Nor is it a PR exercise. I can reaffirm after completing two-thirds of my term in the Rajya Sabha that Parliament is the nation’s commitment to resolving differences peacefully and democratically. True, it is exasperating to see the pandemonium and even non-transaction of business in the House so often. At times one feels helpless over the differences voiced by various parties hailing from different parts of the country. Still at the end of the day, one has the confidence that the diversity will be transformed into a source of strength.

The increasing disappointment being voiced stems from the mistaken belief that Parliament and the government are the same thing. One legislates, the other implements. The fault lies in the implementation. Even the best of laws have remained on paper. Successive governments have not followed them up. Non-performance or mis-performance of governments has come to be attributed to the failure of legislators.

But the biggest worry is the scant attention the intelligentsia, the press and captains of industry and business pay to the institution. This looks intentional at times. I can understand the irreverence of those who believe in an authoritarian regime. I can also appreciate the disillusionment over the quality of MPs — a few of them are history-sheeters and a few have got elected because they have money. But I cannot imagine that the democratic system is worse than the other alternatives man has experimented with.

The intelligentsia is cynical and feels let down. They have done little to develop or improve society. In fact, their performance is dismal. They seem to believe that a principle can only be stoutly defended by the language of violence and by condemning those who do not accept it. The media, to which I have the privilege to belong, is most to blame. Not only is coverage of Parliament scanty, but it is generally motivated. The focus is not on debate or how a bill goes through the numerous stages to become law but in the walkout or the shouting. The general impression which has been spread is that Parliament does not do any work. So many members have complained to me that even their days of preparation for a speech go waste when they do not get even a line in print. Parliament has been described as ‘‘a talking shop’’ but the media largely ignores the talking part. Were there more coverage of the business transacted and less of that non-transacted, people would come to have a healthier attitude to Parliament.

Captains of industry and business have a sense of superiority. They do not want to mix with the plebians whom Parliament represents. I give an example: the sitting of the parliamentary standing committee for home affairs and law in Mumbai last month. The subject was the Competition Bill which may affect the working of industry and business in a big way. Some 20 top people from different fields were invited. Only two turned up. Most of them did not even have the courtesy of conveying their regret, much less an apology.

If this is their attitude to the representatives of the people, it can be well imagined what respect they have for laws emerging from Parliament. Since they can engage the best lawyers, they have come to believe that the courts are more important than Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. They should realise that in a democratic polity elected members are crucial because they represent the people, who are ultimately the rulers of the country.

I think that the insult the Mumbai business houses have heaped on MPs should make Parliament think whether the standing committee should not be vested with the authority to summon anyone as a witness and have the power to punish him or her for disobedience. Riches do not give anyone the right to insult the representatives of the people. Those who run industry and business should be made to realise this plain truth. The matter should not rest at what happened in Mumbai. Parliament must take it up.

My personal view is that Parliament should be more transparent in its functioning. The standing and consultative committees should be open to the media. The committees are the venue where every member gets an opportunity to speak. The House is cramped for time. The committees can summon officials (not ministers) and outside experts to help members get detailed and inside information.

It is unfair to the people who are entitled to know how their representatives reached a particular decision. Before the committees came into existence, everything was debated in Parliament. The knowledge of the public is now limited to what transpires on the floor of the House. I have, in vain, drawn the attention of the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to the wrong done to the electorate by not letting them have full information. In a democracy where information evokes response, no parliamentary activity can take place behind a purdah. The Editors’ Guild of India too has demanded that the proceedings of the committees be thrown open to the media. The argument given against it is that the confidentiality of the discussion would be lost. How can a discussion of the representatives of the people be confidential? It goes against the very spirit of openness that is a must for the working of the democratic system.

It is comical that the full proceedings of a committee are tabled in both Houses but not a word is available to the media when the actual discussion takes place. In fact, the committee’s chairman tells every witness before he or she begins the testimony that it would be made public when the report is submitted to Parliament. If the evidence given is on this understanding, then why deny access to the media when the evidence is recorded?

I have at times felt gagged as an MP. I was a member of the select committee on the Central Vigilance Committee Bill. The bill related to steps to stop corruption in high places. We, 20 members from the lower House and 10 from the upper House, debated the Bill for nearly six months. I was the lone dissenter when the report was submitted. It went against the grain for me to keep hush-hush a report that related to steps against corruption among government servants. I leaked the findings to a multiple-edition English daily. I was hauled up for contempt of the House. I had to apologise although I wonder what would have happened if I had not.

The NDA government has done something abominable and it will hit Parliament in the long run. The decision not to insist on the domicile of a member may change the character of the Rajya Sabha. The Constitution framers made it a Council of States. I think the amendment goes against the Supreme Court judgement that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be changed. For changing the qualifications for election to Rajya Sabha does just that.

Earlier Columns