Protectors of Democracy, Not Ideological Wardens

Disregard for established conventions by the Chairmen of both houses depicts a decline in Parliamentary functioning.

Jagdeep Dhankar and Om Birla. 

(Photo: PTI)

The role of the presiding officers of the two Houses of Parliament will be crucial in enabling it to function smoothly given the perceptible shift in the political mood of the country. Om Birla of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has once again been elected Speaker of the 18^th Lok Sabha, while in the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankar will continue till he completes his term as Vice President.

Their past performance, however, suggests that fair-mindedness might be a tough ask. They are known to be abrasive, silence debate and expunge criticism of the government, especially of the prime minister.

Birla holds the unenviable record of suspending 100 MPs and Dhankar of 46 – unprecedented in the history of the Indian Parliament. On the other hand, their proactive role in expunging references to crony capitalism from parliamentary debates and reluctance to punish BJP MPs for using unparliamentary language – have contributed to the Opposition viewing both presiding officers as being less than impartial.

This time around, the Opposition’s attempt to reach consensus on the position of Speaker was rebuffed by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by Prime Minister Modi. It had offered to concede to the Speaker nominated by the NDA, in return for appointing the Deputy Speaker from the Opposition.

Hopes that the eventual incumbent, Birla would conduct the House in a non-partisan manner this time, were belied when he read out a resolution against the Emergency and asked members to observe a minute’s silence to remember its horrors. His suo motu reference to the Emergency, without any request from the parties in the House, could be interpreted as a political move, perhaps aimed at driving a wedge between the Congress and the other members of the Opposition. Together they had emphasised protection of the Constitution in the just-concluded general election.

In a single day, this unilateral provocation by the Speaker changed the mood of the House away from seeking areas of cooperation between the Treasury and Opposition benches, to outright confrontation between them.

Abrasiveness was also on the front foot when Birla upbraided Thiruvananthapuram MP, Shashi Tharoor, for raising the slogan “Jai Samvidhan (Victory to the Constitution)” after being sworn in. Congress MP Deepender Hooda who objected to this, was peremptorily admonished to offer no advice and “Go, sit down (Chalo Baitho)”.

On the other hand, there was no suo motu reprimand for Bareilly MP Chhatrapal Singh Gangwar for raising the slogan “Jai Hindu Rashtra”, Ghaziabad MP Atul Garg for “Jai Narendra Modi” and “Jai Dr. Hedgewar” and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi for “Jai Palestine” -- after taking oath as MPs.

Throughout the maiden speech of Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi, in the new Lok Sabha, Birla was distinctly uncomfortable but unable to control him in full flow. But later he expunged all of Gandhi’s remarks about the BJP, Prime Minister Modi, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure for the Lok Sabha allows the Speaker to expunge anything “defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified” from the record. Whether Birla was justified in using this rule so expansively as to expunge large portions of Gandhi’s speech is contentious.

Nevertheless, Birla did not think it proper to expunge Prime Minister Modi’s disrespectful remarks about the former chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Hamid Ansari). In replying to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address, he said, “When we came in 2014, our strength in the Rajya Sabha was very low, and the Chair's inclination was somewhat on the other side. But we did not waver from our resolve to serve the country with pride. … Neither Modi nor this government will be afraid of any such obstacles.”

According to well-established parliamentary conventions, one House does not comment on the proceedings of the other House, let alone on the integrity of a former presiding officer of the other House.

The situation in the Rajya Sabha is not significantly better. Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar did not allow Mallikarjun Kharge the basic courtesy of intervening as the LoP in Prime Minister Modi’s reply to the Motion of Thanks. This caused the entire Opposition to walk out.

Dhankar frequently airs opinions that are insensitive and perverse. Kharge, LoP in the Rajya Sabha, was deeply offended by Dhankar’s jibe at Jairam Ramesh of the Congress, “I think you (Ramesh) should replace (Kharge)... You are so intelligent, so gifted, you should immediately come and take the seat”. Kharge objected to this as an upper caste putdown of a Dalit leader.

As in the Lok Sabha, the Opposition also finds the presiding officer of the Upper House blocking criticism of the RSS.

Not only has Dhankar praised the RSS in the House as a “devoted” and “patriotic” organisation but he probably crossed lines of propriety by declaring his alignment with RSS ideology “for the last 25 years” and bemoaning that he had not done so earlier. Political opinion in the country is still strongly divided over the RSS which has been banned for subversive activities in the past.

Such blatant disregard for established rules, procedures, and conventions by the Chairmen of both houses indicates a systemic decline in Parliamentary functioning.

It also questions the role of Secretary Generals of the two Houses who are tasked with familiarising presiding officers with parliamentary etiquette, precedents and rules. They are expected to advise the presiding officers when they perceive that established red lines have been crossed by MPs and to suggest corrective action including expungement of remarks.

If the presiding officers deliberately rile the Opposition, a log-jam in parliament is more than likely. As in the 17^th Lok Sabha, the government will push through its agenda and justify it by claiming high legislative efficiency. However, passing laws without proper debate and discussion and with rare reference to parliamentary select committees is surely an undesirable interpretation of efficiency.

The Indian Parliament is the voice of the Indian people. It should be participatory even if turbulent, contentious and messy. Efficiency is often the hallmark of regimes that are anything but democratic. 

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)