'Anarchy' in Parliament: Was Ansari really off the mark?

As MPs were breaking rules and dealing blows to the expected level of decorum in their conduct in the Rajya Sabha, its chairman Mohamed Hamid Ansari was driven to ask, if they “wanted it to become a federation of anarchists, it is another matter”. It showed the extent of his despair but members disagreed. “Anarchy” was too strong a description, the opposition MPs said. Recently, the Rajya Sabha witnessed similar scenes. MPs from the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Telugu Desam Party invaded the well of the house, raised slogans and tried to disrupt proceedings. In a bid to curb such practice, the Rajya Sabha’s bulletin for the day named them in an attempt to shame them. [caption id=“attachment_1030029” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Was Ansari wrong in his strong criticism of MPs? PTi[/caption] The BJP and TDP MPs were where they were not supposed to be. The well is the horseshoe space in front of the presiding officer, which also seats the staff which helps proceedings and also records them. On its rim sit the MPs who have to make laws. But they did not like being named and shamed despite misbehaviour. So what did they do? They walked out, threatening that if their names were not withdrawn from the bulletin, they would ensure that the proceedings would not continue. The cure, strangely, was a threat of further disruption, denting the very concept of orderly conduct. Indian Express, in an  editorial called it “disruptive zeal of an unrelenting minority”. No doubt there are people who conduct themselves impeccably and it often appears to be from the ranks of the people sitting in the front benches. They too may despair like Ansari did, and in the Lok Sabha, make a point about how the chair was not ensuring discipline. LK Advani ticked off Speaker, Meira Kumar, a report said, for the way the house was being conducted. However, haven’t we all seen how these leaders from either side sitting quietly when the backbenchers raise a shindig? Haven’t we seen Sonia Gandhi signalling to her party men to rise in protest which often means loud shouting? It is difficult to absolve anyone of involvement in the ruckus; it could mean silently sitting, as Manmohan Singh does, when others around him shout. The BJP may have had a case, trying to make a point about the government’s response on the LoC violation by Pakistan. The TDP was protesting against statehood for Telangana, also, no doubt, an important issue. They also had another significant point to make: earlier, Congress MPs too had done what the TDP’s did. Why single out Opposition parties? The irony of seeking a solution by threatening another disruptive tactic should not be lost sight of. In parliamentary democracy, in a forum where discussion, persuasion and a vote are means to win a side over, such threats have no place. However strong your case, however weak your numbers, sabotaging the theatre to stage your play is reprehensible. What is amusing is that MPs think their misconduct – clearly against the rules of business and conduct –  and the ‘withdrawal’ of the names from the bulletin clears their slate. It does not. It remains in the records as having been withdrawn but it does not wipe out the stigma. The country is aware of their misconduct. Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha TV telecast it in real time. News channels use those snippets courtesy the recorder, the Doordarshan, even if it is with a slight lag in time, mostly the same day. The next day, newspapers too report it.  It is not as if the tapes are rewound and unappetising portions deleted, and the rest is retained the archives. Haven’t we often seen the presiding officers in either houses urging, begging, even expressing helplessness at the boisterous situations, especially in the past two-three years? Those images of the chairpersons flailing their arms – PA Sangma vividly comes to mind, doesn’t he? – are so imprinted on the public’s mind that MPs orderly conduct comes as a surprise. The television has been a valuable window into what was once a hallowed temple of democracy to show what it has now become. Debates lack punch and arguments are sought to be given weight by every other tactic, including intemperate shouting down of members who are on their feet. Sloganeering, more than reasoned discussions seem to be favoured, never mind important that laws are made without discussion amid the din. However, the treasury benches should equally share the responsibility for it tends to treat the Opposition as a rival and not a coequal participant in the nation’s efforts to become whatever it has set itself to be. If the Opposition opposes for opposition’s sake, the treasury does much the same, unable or unwilling to look for reason from across the much-abused well. Haven’t we seen ruling party’s members indulge in  rambunctious behaviour? It cannot be absolved of its role because it can be mule-headed. To it, even if the major allies are not on the same page, the idea that walking half the distance to evolve consensus is a sign of weakness. In the bargain, it has helped in weakening the one institution which represents the people; others work for the people. In their political games, people get pushed away by another arms’ length. There is another practice in law-making bodies which is somewhat removed from the reality, and belongs to what can be called another ethical and moral era that is long past. It is the lawmakers right to correct the text of one’s speech in the proceedings. The text shown for approval of the member concerned, lest something wrongly taken down by the staff get into the records. It seemingly serves an archival purpose but given the level of debates, one can wonder if they would ever be pulled out like those by the learned founding fathers’ were. They held their own place even in courts to aid the judiciary on intent of a constitutional provision during the course of an argument. When was the last great meaningful speech made? The Indian Express reported, citing an MLA, how there often are “exchange of heated arguments” and while all proceedings get recorded, the official version is compiled omitting expressions or words found (to be) unparliamentary”, in other words, sanitised. However, the world can know what the expunged word or expression was because, at least in some legislatures, they are telecast live. Sudhir Mungatiwar, a Maharashtra legislator, is said to have made public an ‘uncut’ or ‘uncensored’ – the latter a surprising expression for a newspaper – ‘version’, meaning a sanitised one, of a discussion in the state legislature by which he flouted a house ‘protocol’. No one advocates breaking of traditions but in this case, it appears more a bid to cling to the form than content. But that precise discussion, if any media were interested, could already have been public, even discussed. If this way of asking the members to read and correct their outpourings at least helps sensitising them to their own follies and to correct their own conduct themselves, the legislatures would be have been far better places. Given what we see in law-making bodies presently, all this seems so pointless, isn’t it?