As the winter session of Parliament looms, I can’t help feeling depressed about the predictability of most parliamentary debates in the Lok Sabha these days.
The Narendra Modi government will propose. The opposition will oppose. If matters come to a head and a vote is called, the government’s brute majority will dispose.
The merits of the issue will matter little. There will be no reasoned attempts to persuade the other side; or rather, when such attempts are made by the well-meaning, they will prove futile, since persuasion, reflection and exchange are not the purpose of the exercise. Increasingly, parliamentary debates have become a ritual, the obligatory airing of opposing views, until the whip is cracked and MPs duly vote on party lines.
Even sensible suggestions by the opposition – with which the treasury benches do not in fact disagree – are never adopted, since to do so would be admitting the possibility of flexibility in government legislation in the Lok Sabha. The only time that opposition views are taken into account is when the outcome of the vote would otherwise be uncertain – like in the last few years, in the upper house. And now even that is changing as the Modi government is establishing a majority in the Rajya Sabha as well.
But in the Lok Sabha, secure in its overwhelming majority, the government simply chooses not to listen, or to listen with a closed mind. The idea of Parliament as a forum for collective deliberation and agreed outcomes has ceased to have any meaning.
There is very little real give-and-take in India’s parliamentary system, especially after the 1985 Anti-Defection law inaugurated a practice of party whips on all issues, making receptivity to the ideas of the other side punishable with expulsion from the House. What, one might ask, is the point of such debates at all, other than to nail one’s colours to the party mast? Why should a serious MP exercise his or her grey cells to come up with constructive suggestions, if they are never going to be considered, let alone adopted?
Also read: At special classes this Winter Session, MPs to get Sanskrit lessons from RSS affiliate
Idea of an ideal Parliament
This was not how it was meant to be. Parliament, in the classic British conception, was supposed to be a forum where individual MPs of ability and integrity met to discuss common problems and come to agreed solutions. Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke, in his famous speech to the Electors of Bristol on 3 November 1774, articulated most brilliantly and clearly the logic of parliamentary representation. Burke was addressing the issue of MPs being asked to advocate the wishes of their constituents, rather than themselves, but his logic also applies to the issue of MPs parroting their party lines. He is worth quoting in his own words:
“…It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents [or here, if you prefer, read “Party”]. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
In other words, an MP betrays himself and his voters if he surrenders his own better judgement to the dictates of either his constituents or party leadership. As Burke explains, “government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?”
Burke’s final point is the clincher: “Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, [one might add today, “not party lines”] ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament”.
This goes to the nub of the entire issue. What is our conception of what Prime Minister Modi has called the “temple of democracy”? Is it merely a place to ratify decisions made elsewhere in party cabals or cabinet meetings, whose adoption is rendered inevitable by the previous Lok Sabha election results? Or is it a chamber where the representatives of the Indian people assemble to express their considered opinions and thoughtful disagreements, before coming to an outcome in the interests not of a political party but of the country as a whole?
Also read: From Manmohan to Modi, Indian govt has been working to kill RTI Act – with judiciary’s help
Death of individual liberty
The anti-defection law was passed with good intentions – the same good intentions with which, the proverb tells us, the road to hell is paved. It was intended to stop the Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram practice of legislators crossing the floor in pursuit of power and pelf, which saw state governments (and two central governments) between 1967 and 1985 rise and fall like skittles. The idea was noble, and rested on sound principles: governmental stability matters; politicians must stay loyal to the party on whose platform they contested; the intent of voters must not be betrayed by defections. When the law was first explained by its proponents, there was widespread support, even enthusiasm, for its passage.
But how has it worked in practice? It has dramatically reduced defections, but not eliminated them, as we have seen in Uttarakhand, Manipur, Goa and Karnataka in recent years. What it has done most effectively is to stifle the voice of the individual legislator. Since every single vote in Parliament sees a whip being issued, however trivial the subject of the bill, there is no room for honest differences of opinion.
Disobeying a whip offers grounds not just for disciplinary action by a political party, but expulsion from Parliament altogether. No MP who has struggled and strived (and spent) to get elected to his seat lightly places it in jeopardy. His convictions become secondary to the party line. The ‘argumentative Indian’ is often on display in both Houses, but only when an MP is arguing strictly according to his party’s position.
As a result, the anti-defection law has reduced each MP to a cipher during every vote, a number to be totted up by his party whip rather than an individual of ability, conviction and conscience. This outcome has other effects: it reduces the need for each MP to study an issue thoroughly and come to a position on it, since his own stand no longer matters unless that MP is part of the party leadership. In my experience, most MPs only study the bills they are assigned to speak on; the rest sees them dutifully voting as their party whip tells them to.
This is, in many ways, a travesty of the parliamentary process. In the UK, where the system originated, no whip was issued even on so fundamental a vote as to whether to authorise the government to proceed with the Brexit negotiations. Earlier, no whip was issued on whether the UK should support the US in the Iraq war. Dissent was freely and honestly expressed on both sides of the aisle. Such freedom is unknown to the Indian MP after the passage of the anti-defection law in 1985.
Also read: There is still hope for Congress. But first, Rahul Gandhi must quit politics
The problem
Part of the problem is that the main provisions of the Constitution regarding the legislature were silent about the party system; the later addition of the anti-defection clause in the Tenth Schedule in 1985 was patently illogical since it sought to punish the undermining of an institution that was itself not mentioned in the main provisions. Surely the Schedule cannot override the main provisions of the Constitution?
Did the founders of India’s Constitution ever intend the party system to be paramount to an individual parliamentarian, obliging him to subordinate his conscience to the party whip?
Also read: BJP & media’s continuing obsession with Rahul Gandhi only shows that he is still relevant
These are questions to which there are no real answers in today’s India. But it’s time we started asking them honestly.
The author is a Member of Parliament for Thiruvananthapuram and former MoS for External Affairs and HRD. He served the UN as an administrator and peacekeeper for three decades. He studied History at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University and International Relations at Tufts University. Tharoor has authored 18 books, both fiction and non-fiction; his most recent book is The Paradoxical Prime Minister. Follow him on Twitter @ShashiTharoor. Views are personal.
All of us Middle class people were happy when Rajiv Gandhi brought in the Anti-defection Law in 1985.We were all weary of Unprincipled Defections by Elected Representatives for clearly visible personal ambition of becoming powerful(Chaudhary Charan Singh in 1979) and wealthy(all other Aayaa Rams and Gayaa Rams) in a poor country. We the Middle Class were so delighted at this bold attempt to eliminate immorality that we did not read the fine print which said ‘any violation of party whip in the house would mean loss of Membership of the MP/MLA concerned – and the Constitution and Law did not impose any restriction on the Issues on which a Party whip could be issued. Shashi Tharoor mentions this but stops short of suggesting that we need a Constitution Amendment to specify that Whip can not be issued to restrict a Member’s freedom to vote unless the Motion on vote is a No-Confidence Motion or a Confidence Motion where stability of Govt.is threatened by a Party MPs free exercise of choice to vote for or against the motion.
Tharoor is right… But the sad reality is, he feels like writing this now, when he is in the opposition.
Another point which he should address is “blind criticism” without proof. The fear of the opposition, that they should not allow the govt to score brownie points, as that would be detrimental to their own interests.
Tharoor definitely has a valid point. But an MP in Indian parliament is a different animal. Most of them won not because of their honest commitment to any high moral values or understanding of what their constituents need. They have won by shear use of money and and patronage of party bosses. Many of them can switch sides when it suits their personal interest in making money. The anti defection bill assumes that that category of MPs are limited and that if they congregate as a group, it is assumed they have a common point to make. Any Individual MP who feels very sensitive on any valid point is always free to resign and contest election and get back to parliament. The flip side is what Tharoor points out. But in Indian context, it is not possible to get rid of the anti defection law.
Shashi is the right man in the wrong party. It hurts average Indians when Shashi, a man of stature and exceptional ability in speaking and writing, has to bow down to the wishes of Sonia who has never earned any decent educational qualifications.
So he should join the BJP and bow down to the wishes of ‘high intellects’ like Modi and Shah?
The gravest error that the BJP can make is to agree to any resolution passed by the Congress MPs in parliament. Unless the Congress MPs pass a resolution saying 1. they love Mother India and stand firmly against corruption, 2. They fully support Narendra Modi as prime minister.
Shashi Tharoor would do well to start first asking the Congress to change. The change will be visible when the Congress for two sessions at least, stands firmly in support of all resolutions that the Modi government brings. By all means express your views but, say clearly, loudly and unambiguously, that you stand with the government, support it.
Do not forget that everyone still remembers well the constant statement by Congress leadership when they referred to Modi: ‘your prime minister’
In case Tharoor or other Congress MPs indeed want to be heeded in parliament, they would do well to switch sides, ditch the Congress and join the BJP.
That would be the best service to the nation.
Principally, Shashi could be right up to a point. But Anti- defection law (incidentally passed by Rajeev Gandhi government!) is required not just for debating and voting in Parliament in line with the Party dictate but also for many other occasions. Besides, one can’t say dismiss what is approved by the ruling party and the Cabinet as approved by some cabal. The party represents the will of the people based on its manifesto so its legislative actions can be debated of course but not dismissed as such. If a member feels so strongly about his views or dictatorial nature of party system, he can always resign and get elected as an independent candidate. The government needs to act on many issues with definitive time frame and mechanism of joint parliamentary committee to scrutinize each and every bill need not be resorted to. Besides, voters are watching the government and the opposition and if government is doing something wrong, popular opinion will make it change its stance or it will be punished next time around. The problem is that opposition has no agenda other than demonizing Modi and has nothing constructive to offer. If Shashi indeed has some worthwhile suggestions to make on any bill, he can even do it outside the Parliament as well and convert TV studios in a off line house and put indirect pressure on the government by building up public opinion on the issue. But this is not his intention. His intention is to act ‘holier than thou’ and then be free for procrastinating and filibustering! Shashi, of course, talks impressively (a delight to watch when he argues in Oxford or Cambridge debates) and writes well (his book on Hinduism is a good read) but his flippancy on this issue can be seen through easily. Of course, we need a debonair guy like him to be in Parliament.
I missed one more contribution of Rajiv Gandhi to lack of quality in parliamentary debate. His Anti-defection law, inserted as 10th Schedule in the Constitution put an end to divergent views being discussed in the Parliament, for the fear of being labelled as a defector. The practice of voting and talking along party line came into vogue thanks to Rajiv Gandhi’s shortsighted anti-defection law.
How should the parliament work? None of the congress governments followed the model of Edmund Burke. Nehru had huge majority. He did not even let largest opposition group be recognised as opposition party? This went on for seventeen years. For seven years between 1971 and 1977 Indira Gandhi had two thirds majority. She gave us the infamous emergency. Rajive Gandhi had record majority in Loksabha. He told opposition “I don’t care for barking dogs”. Worse, he also said “Teri naani kaa yaad dilaoonga!”. The tradition set by congress has been faithfully followed by successive governments as it suts the party in power. It takes time for old habits to die, especially the convenient bad habits..