Opinion: Opinion | Parliament Session: BJP Don't Want To Answer Some Hard Questions
We are into the second week of the Winter Session of Parliament. The first week was washed out. MPs from Opposition parties, like the Trinamool Congress and the Samajwadi Party, are demanding ‘issues of national public importance' be discussed on the floor of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha: price rise, unemployment, the situation in the North East and Manipur, states being deprived of funds by the Union government, and violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, among others. The principal Opposition party, the Congress, wants a discussion on the alleged financial irregularities of the Adani group. Deadlock.
At the time of writing this article, there is news that the deadlock between the Opposition and the Union government has been broken. Media reports suggest that in exchange for a discussion on the Constitution to be taken up in mid-December (almost two weeks from now), the government and the Opposition will ensure Parliament functions smoothly. I find this ludicrous.
How can you come to an understanding on December 2, about what will be discussed in mid-December on the floor of Parliament! What will happen in the interim? If an agreement has indeed been reached between the government and the Opposition, why wait for two weeks to implement it? Start the discussion this week itself. The Modi-led NDA coalition is being too clever by half.
Let me put it straight up. It is the Union government that does not want Parliament to function. But do not take the view of this Opposition MP seriously. Here is what two BJP stalwarts had said about the functioning of Parliament:
“Parliament's job is to conduct discussions. But many a time, Parliament is used to ignore issues and in such situations, obstruction of Parliament is in the favour of democracy.” - Arun Jaitley, 2011.
“It is the government's job to run the Parliament, not that of the opposition.” - Sushma Swaraj, 2012.
Disgraceful Record In Parliament
Even when Parliament functions, what is the track record of Mr Narendra Modi in the last decade. Consider this:
Let us now handle the second issue in the headlines: the demand to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). A JPC only looks good on paper. Its very structure and track record suggests that it is most unlikely to deliver meaningful results, especially when the ruling dispensation enjoys a dominant majority in Parliament.
Ruling Party Dominates The JPC
The composition of the JPC is determined by the strength of parties in Parliament. With the NDA's majority in both Houses, any JPC formed today would be dominated by members loyal to the ruling party.
The chairperson, almost certainly a BJP MP, would steer the proceedings. Key decisions, from selecting witnesses to approving reports, would be controlled by the Treasury benches. This compromises the credibility of the entire process and makes the ruling dispensation a judge in their own case.
No Consensus, Only Dissent
JPCs rarely reach consensus on their reports. Opposition members are almost always outvoted by the majority. Any dissenting views are reduced to a footnote in the final report, which rubber-stamps the ruling party's narrative.
Here are some examples. During the Bofors case, the committee, chaired by B. Shankaranand, was formed in 1987. It held 50 sittings and submitted its report in 1988. The committee concluded that there was no evidence of any violation of Indian law concerning the Bofors payments. However, it faced a boycott from Opposition members.
For the Harshad Mehta scam in 1992, a committee was constituted following the discovery of irregularities in banking and securities transactions at the State Bank of India. The committee held 96 sittings and submitted its report in which included 273 recommendations. The report failed to address systemic market
issues, leaving room for future financial scandals. Of the 273 recommendations, the government accepted only 87 in its action taken report, presented in July 1994.
In many such instances, including the Ketan Parekh scam in 2001, Opposition members either boycotted or dissented from the final JPC reports because they were biased towards the ruling party.
Recommendations Go Nowhere
Even when JPCs make good recommendations, they are often ignored. The 2001 JPC on the stock market scam suggested stronger regulations, but many of its proposals were diluted or ignored. The 2011 JPC on spectrum allocation saw its findings mired in controversy, with little meaningful reform.
Bread and butter issues need to be discussed this Winter Session of Parliament. Why are the prices of onions, tomatoes, and garlic so high? Why are four out of ten youth unemployed? Why are States who oppose the BJP deliberately penalised? Why is Prime Minister Modi so skittish about visiting Manipur? These are just some of the hard questions the BJP refuses to answer on the floor of Parliament.
Additional research: Chahat Mangtani
(Derek O'Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
We are into the second week of the Winter Session of Parliament. The first week was washed out. MPs from Opposition parties, like the Trinamool Congress and the Samajwadi Party, are demanding ‘issues of national public importance' be discussed on the floor of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha: price rise, unemployment, the situation in the North East and Manipur, states being deprived of funds by the Union government, and violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, among others. The principal Opposition party, the Congress, wants a discussion on the alleged financial irregularities of the Adani group. Deadlock.
At the time of writing this article, there is news that the deadlock between the Opposition and the Union government has been broken. Media reports suggest that in exchange for a discussion on the Constitution to be taken up in mid-December (almost two weeks from now), the government and the Opposition will ensure Parliament functions smoothly. I find this ludicrous.
How can you come to an understanding on December 2, about what will be discussed in mid-December on the floor of Parliament! What will happen in the interim? If an agreement has indeed been reached between the government and the Opposition, why wait for two weeks to implement it? Start the discussion this week itself. The Modi-led NDA coalition is being too clever by half.
Let me put it straight up. It is the Union government that does not want Parliament to function. But do not take the view of this Opposition MP seriously. Here is what two BJP stalwarts had said about the functioning of Parliament:
“Parliament's job is to conduct discussions. But many a time, Parliament is used to ignore issues and in such situations, obstruction of Parliament is in the favour of democracy.” - Arun Jaitley, 2011.
“It is the government's job to run the Parliament, not that of the opposition.” - Sushma Swaraj, 2012.
Disgraceful Record In Parliament
Even when Parliament functions, what is the track record of Mr Narendra Modi in the last decade. Consider this:
- In the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14), seven out of 10 Bills were sent to committees for scrutiny, in the 7th LS (2019-24), only two out of 10 Bills were sent for scrutiny.
- Nine out of 10 bills introduced in Parliament were marked by zero or incomplete consultations in the 17th LS.
- A total of 221 Bills were passed, of which over one-third were hurried through with less than a 60-minute discussion.
- No Deputy Leader was elected in Lok Sabha for the entirety of 17th LS. The current Lok Sabha still has no Deputy Leader.
- In the last eight years, not a single notice by a member of the Opposition has been accepted for discussion under Rule 267 in Rajya Sabha.
- The Prime Minister has not answered a single question on the floor of Parliament.
Let us now handle the second issue in the headlines: the demand to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). A JPC only looks good on paper. Its very structure and track record suggests that it is most unlikely to deliver meaningful results, especially when the ruling dispensation enjoys a dominant majority in Parliament.
Ruling Party Dominates The JPC
The composition of the JPC is determined by the strength of parties in Parliament. With the NDA's majority in both Houses, any JPC formed today would be dominated by members loyal to the ruling party.
The chairperson, almost certainly a BJP MP, would steer the proceedings. Key decisions, from selecting witnesses to approving reports, would be controlled by the Treasury benches. This compromises the credibility of the entire process and makes the ruling dispensation a judge in their own case.
No Consensus, Only Dissent
JPCs rarely reach consensus on their reports. Opposition members are almost always outvoted by the majority. Any dissenting views are reduced to a footnote in the final report, which rubber-stamps the ruling party's narrative.
Here are some examples. During the Bofors case, the committee, chaired by B. Shankaranand, was formed in 1987. It held 50 sittings and submitted its report in 1988. The committee concluded that there was no evidence of any violation of Indian law concerning the Bofors payments. However, it faced a boycott from Opposition members.
For the Harshad Mehta scam in 1992, a committee was constituted following the discovery of irregularities in banking and securities transactions at the State Bank of India. The committee held 96 sittings and submitted its report in which included 273 recommendations. The report failed to address systemic market
issues, leaving room for future financial scandals. Of the 273 recommendations, the government accepted only 87 in its action taken report, presented in July 1994.
In many such instances, including the Ketan Parekh scam in 2001, Opposition members either boycotted or dissented from the final JPC reports because they were biased towards the ruling party.
Recommendations Go Nowhere
Even when JPCs make good recommendations, they are often ignored. The 2001 JPC on the stock market scam suggested stronger regulations, but many of its proposals were diluted or ignored. The 2011 JPC on spectrum allocation saw its findings mired in controversy, with little meaningful reform.
Bread and butter issues need to be discussed this Winter Session of Parliament. Why are the prices of onions, tomatoes, and garlic so high? Why are four out of ten youth unemployed? Why are States who oppose the BJP deliberately penalised? Why is Prime Minister Modi so skittish about visiting Manipur? These are just some of the hard questions the BJP refuses to answer on the floor of Parliament.
Additional research: Chahat Mangtani
(Derek O'Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author