Those Who Insult Parliament, Speak Of Reverence For Central Hall! 

4 Jul, 2017 10:40 IST|Sakshi
GST launch event at the Central Hall of Parliament 

Mahesh Vijapurkar

To the Congress, the midnight launch of GST from the Central Hall of Parliament was “an insult to 1947”, which is a reference to the transfer of power when Jawaharlal Nehru delivered his “tryst with destiny” speech. The party also said its boycott was “ideological”. To say the least, it is the most amusing explanation.

The Central Hall is a part of the Sansad Bhavan which also houses the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha from where the business of democracy is to be transacted by discussion and debate, and decisions arrived at by consensus or vote. The Central Hall is where the President delivers his Address when the Houses convene. It is where the Constitution was adopted.

Thus, it is not just a museum to that glorious events but a place of significance in the conduct of parliamentary business. It is also used when any visiting dignitary is invited to speak to Parliament. Speaking of “an insult” – voiced by the experienced parliamentarian Anand Sharma – is only a convenient exercise in cherry-picking an excuse for not attending the launch.

This development affords us a reason to look at the attitude of the political class towards parliament itself. If Congress, or for that matter any party, held the Central Hall in reverence, then the same attitude is missing when it comes to the conduct of business. Reverence to Central Hall cannot be at the exclusion of the two other chambers where the business supposed to be conducted is not transacted.

President Pranabh Mukherjee had chided the parliamentarians recently: “For God’s sake, do your job. You are meant to transact business in parliament. Disruption of parliament is not acceptable at all”. He had ample justification because progressively, the hours lost to pandemonium in the two houses is only increasing which defeats parliament’s purpose as enshrined in the Constitution adopted in that very Central Hall.

The exasperation of the President is matched by the dismay of the citizens who have by now come to assume that one cannot expect anything better than disruption from the MPs. BJP’s Arun Jaitley, when in Opposition, had disingenuously argued that disruption and obstruction was “beneficial” because smooth conduct would provide “an escape” for the government “through a debate”.

There is hardly a political party which has not engaged in disruptive conduct in parliament and it therefore does not lie in the mouth of any politician to speak of “an insult” to any part of the place. If only the Congress had committed to smooth proceedings for ever, and demanded the same of the ruling coalition when they switched sides, would have been honest. Any fora for debate and discussion cannot be reduced to a stage for bedlam.

The habit of rendering the parliament dysfunctional does not sit well with claiming respect for the Central Hall. It seems as if it was eons ago that a method of protest at the Government was by a walk out by the Opposition. It is a misunderstanding that an Opposition which is short of numbers to form a majority and a government can always have a way with policies by disruption.

It is instructive that the First Lok Sabha which was elected by a largely illiterate population in a sudden shift to adult franchise did not waste a single hour of the hours of business that were scheduled. It was because of the character of our leaders then. Thirty per cent of 16th Lok Sabha’s time during the last winter session, and 35 percent of the Rajya Sabha were lost due to disruptions.

So, the question that arises is, whether, we as the voters have time and again been wrong in choosing the kind of people we do as our representatives? Or, is there something seriously wrong with the deterioration of the very fabric of our democracy and the quality of political leadership? Perhaps all. But in a binary world of politics, bipartisanship is a lost cause.

whatsapp channel
Read More:
More News