The sanctity and integrity of Parliament, as well as its key players—the parliamentarians—have been the subject of persistent doubts in recent years, which have shaken India's democracy to its very core. Casting shadows on this institution, which ostensibly represents the vastness of Indian democracy, is nothing short of a smear campaign against the nation itself.
Take the past year as an illustrative example, and a disconcerting pattern emerges. The opposition parties, in a brazen display of disdain for democratic norms, orchestrated significant blockades of parliamentary proceedings. Such disruptive tactics, masquerading as protests, are not only unacceptable but also a blatant impediment to the functioning of an institution that, in essence, should transcend allegiance to any particular political party regime and instead serve the collective interests of the people of India.
Also Read: Mahua Moitra moves Supreme Court against her expulsion from Lok Sabha over cash-for-query
Equally disconcerting is the spate of punitive actions taken by the Parliament against its members, mostly from the opposition side, in the past year. Aam Aadmi Party's Sanjay Singh and Raghav Chadha, Congress MP Adhir Ranjhan Chaudhari, and the expulsion of Congress scion Rahul Gandhi and TMC's Mahua Moitra all bear testament to a political atmosphere rife with retribution. Although a few sought reprieve through legal channels, such as Rahul Gandhi, Raghav Chadha and Mahua Moitra moving the Supreme Court, the fact that punitive measures were meted out in the first place raises concerns about the Parliament's commitment to due process.
Amidst this political tumult, the most recent instance was the serious allegations of 'cash for queries' that tarnished the reputation of TMC MP Mahua Moitra. The accusation, which implies that she accepted money and benefits from a Darshan Hiranandani-owned business group in exchange for asking questions about the Adani group to pressure the BJP government, adds more uncertainty to an already stormy situation.
The overarching narrative at this juncture is crystal clear—both the sanctity and integrity of Parliament are under scrutiny, and simultaneously, the transparency of MPs in representing the very people who elected them is dubious. This disconcerting situation sounds alarming, as it threatens to disrupt the delicate equilibrium of democracy in India. In order to prevent the very foundation of India's democratic fabric from collapsing under the weight of political opacity, the pillars of democracy should stand firm and untarnished by shadows of doubt and opaque dealings.
Parliament is just not about politics but about people
The once-revered halls of Parliament are now witnessing a daily dismantling of sanctity and integrity, a demolition job executed with equal fervour by both the opposition and the ruling party. This relentless erosion is not just unwarranted; it's an ominous foreshadowing of democracy's impending doom.
Gone are the days when the Prime Minister graced Parliament with a consistent presence. The stark contrast from the times of leaders like Dr. Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, or P.V. Narasimha Rao is impossible to ignore. In a departure from tradition, the ruling party no longer bothers with the courtesy of engaging in meaningful discourse or seeking consensus on vital policy issues with its opposition counterparts. All-party meetings are mere ceremonial charades, while the real policy decisions are bulldozed through Parliament, riding on the coattails of numerical advantage.
The opposition, on the other hand, has embraced an attitude of staggering arrogance in its parliamentary manoeuvres over the past years. Displaying zero coordination with the government, their actions within Parliament reveal a deliberate obstinacy. From instigating blockades to practising dogged stubbornness, the opposition seems more interested in obstructing than cooperating with the ruling regime.
It appears that both sides have conveniently forgotten that Parliament isn't just a political battleground but a crucial arena for formulating policies that shape the destiny of the people of the country. Today, the once-revealed halls of legislation no longer echo with thoughtful debates on policies that truly matter. Instead, they reverberate with the cacophony of political manoeuvring, where the essence of parliamentary proceedings has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition.
The fundamental purpose of Parliament, once the epicentre for policy formulation, now stands overshadowed by the pervasive spectre of political posturing and power plays. It's a perilous departure from the democratic ideals that once defined the very soul of India's parliamentary system.
Parliament must not silence opposition
In a vibrant democracy like India, curtailing the voices of opposition within Parliament is akin to silencing the very essence of our democratic fabric. A healthy democracy thrives on open dialogue and debate, allowing for diverse perspectives to shape policy and legislation. Silencing dissent, even if it comes from the opposition benches, creates an atmosphere of fear and stifles constructive criticism, ultimately harming the nation's progress.
Consider the recent instances where outspoken MPs like Rahul Gandhi and Mahua Moitra were targeted for their vocal critiques of the government. While their views may not always align with the majority, their presence in Parliament encourages critical thinking and exposes potential flaws in the administration's decisions. Curbing their voices not only undermines their individual rights but also sends a chilling message to other potential dissenters, creating an echo chamber where only the dominant narrative prevails.
Both Moitra and Gandhi faced expulsion for different reasons, and everyone understands that the motive behind these was not so novel and above question. In the esteemed chambers of the Rajya Sabha, the leader of the opposition often finds their voice drowned out, interrupted, or conveniently stifled.
The blatant disparity in treatment becomes glaringly evident as opposition MPs endure unwarranted comments, puns, and other disruptive tactics from the chairman, while their counterparts from the ruling party enjoy a conspicuously smoother ride. This unequal behaviour not only undermines the essence of fair discourse but also exposes the orchestrated tactics employed to quash dissenting voices in the name of parliamentary proceedings.
A robust democracy thrives on open debate and the exchange of ideas, even if they are uncomfortable or dissenting. By protecting the right of opposition voices to be heard within the sacred halls of Parliament, we ensure that our democracy remains vibrant and responsive to the needs of all its citizens. Silencing dissent, on the other hand, paves the way for an authoritarian regime, eroding the very foundations of a free and fair society. Let us not allow India's democracy to succumb to such a fate.
From debate to diatribes, a disturbing descent
Parliament, once a forum for vibrant debate and intellectual discourse, has witnessed a disturbing decline in its discourse. Political exchanges have degenerated into personal attacks, name-calling, and even threats, fueled by a toxic mix of hyper-partisanship and social media echo chambers. This trend reached its nadir recently with Ramesh Bidhuri's vulgar and offensive remarks directed towards Danish Ali in the Lok Sabha. Such blatant disregard for parliamentary decorum and basic human decency is not only unacceptable but also sets a dangerous precedent. It encourages a culture where rants take the place of dialogue and normalises hate speech.
The consequences of such a descent are far-reaching. It erodes public trust in our democratic institutions, discourages talented individuals from entering politics, and ultimately hinders the nation's progress. Without reasoned debate and constructive criticism, policy decisions lose their legitimacy and become susceptible to biases and vested interests.
If India aspires to be a truly mature democracy, it must arrest this decline in political discourse. This requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders—politicians, media, and citizens alike. Politicians must uphold the dignity of Parliament and engage in respectful dialogue, even with their adversaries. The media must play a responsible role by verifying information and providing unbiased coverage of political events. Finally, citizens must hold their elected representatives accountable and demand a higher standard of discourse.
Mohua Moita and the issue of accountability for MPs
At the forefront of this unfolding drama lie a multitude of pressing questions confronting the public. Mahua Moitra unquestionably violated parliamentary protocol by disclosing account information, which she herself acknowledged, and the revelations made by the parliamentary ethics panel undoubtedly cast a shadow over her actions. However, the graver concern arises from allegations of receiving cash, gifts, and favours for leveraging her parliamentary position in support of Darshan Hiranandani's interests within the parliament.
The affidavit before the ethics committee claiming Moitra's solicitation of gifts for parliamentary advocacy is an undoubtedly disconcerting revelation. If proven true, it is a reprehensible act that jeopardises the sanctity and privilege of the Indian parliament. The gravity of this transgression cannot be overstated, and unequivocal condemnation is warranted.
This is an unacceptable act by Moitra because this is a treachery with the people of her constituency and India as well. In the theatre of democracy, the rights of constituents to scrutinise their elected representatives are non-negotiable. The people, as stakeholders, deserve an unfiltered lens into the actions and decisions of their Members of Parliament (MPs).
Transparency isn't a luxury; it's the bedrock of a thriving democracy. The accountability of MPs is not a mere formality but a vital bridge connecting governance with the grassroots. In India's diverse landscape, where local nuances matter, constituents have the right to know how their chosen representatives champion their causes on the national stage.
This isn't just about updates; it's about active engagement and an unwavering commitment to addressing the unique challenges of each constituency. As the architects of policy and progress, MPs must embrace accountability as a duty, not a choice, ensuring that the democratic dialogue remains a vibrant and responsive exchange between the elected and the electors.
Question of the Ethics Committee and natural justice
The recent recommendation by the ethics committee for the expulsion of Moitra raises grave concerns, challenging not just its jurisdiction but also the fundamental tenets of natural justice. Accusations of violating procedural fairness underscore a disturbing trend, wherein the committee's actions appear to deviate from the foundational principles of justice. It is imperative for Parliament to recognise that a committee, as its representative arm, is intrinsically tied to the institution's integrity.
Any transgression against natural justice becomes a stain on the sanctity of Parliament, emphasising the urgent need for accountability and a thorough reevaluation of committee proceedings to ensure they align with democratic values and uphold the principles of fairness and transparency.
Supreme Court and issue of Parliamentary privileges
Moitra's legal challenge against expulsion adds a layer of complexity to an already intricate matter. Due to Article 105 of the Constitution's limitations on its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India exercises caution when interfering with parliamentary committees. It asserts its authority only in cases of flagrant unconstitutionality or egregious illegality, refraining from probing the motives behind parliamentary proceedings.
The precedent set in the expulsion of BSP MP Raja Ram Pal reinforces this principle. In the 2006 cash-for-questions scandal, despite Pal contesting his expulsion, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's decision, underscoring its right to expel members for gross misconduct. The court unequivocally stated that its interference is contingent upon violations of constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. Thus, Moitra's legal battle highlights the nuanced limitations of the Supreme Court's authority, reserving its intervention for cases that strike at the heart of constitutional principles or legality.
—The author, Prof Sayantan Ghosh, is a political observer and research scholar, and currently teaches journalism at St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. The views expressed are personal.
(Edited by : C H Unnikrishnan)
First Published: Dec 12, 2023 8:36 AM IST
Check out our in-depth Market Coverage, Business News & get real-time Stock Market Updates on CNBC-TV18. Also, Watch our channels CNBC-TV18, CNBC Awaaz and CNBC Bajar Live on-the-go!
Lok Sabha Election 2024: What rural Delhi wants
May 16, 2024 10:10 PM
Over 50 onion farmers detained in Nashik ahead of PM Modi's visit
May 16, 2024 11:14 AM
Why Google CEO is cautiously optimistic about the election year
May 16, 2024 9:51 AM
Mark Mobius reveals how markets will react if NDA wins 400+ Lok Sabha seats
May 15, 2024 8:09 PM