In a democracy, should avoiding Parliament be a way to register protest? Isn’t a well-run elected House the life-blood of democracy?
Halfway through the Monsoon Session of Parliament, it is clear that key elements of the Opposition are determined not to let the two Houses run. They say they will let Parliament function only if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh resigns in deference to their demand, as he is presumed to be the linchpin of the orchestration of what the Opposition is assiduously calling “Coalgate” following questions of procedure raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in allotment of coal blocks to private companies, which, in its reckoning, led to a notional — not real — loss of Rs 1.86 lakh crore to the exchequer.
That is plainly over the top.
In practical terms, if the PM were to quit under Opposition pressure, a fresh election will have to be prematurely called in all likelihood, given the state of Indian politics in which expediency has lately triumphed over any vision of building a stable environment that would promote development. Where then is the question of the BJP and the Left, AIADMK and BJD — which appear to be cavorting with the saffron party on this — letting Parliament run smoothly if Dr Singh were to go? (This is quite apart from the question of why he should go on the say-so of Opposition groups as he has neither stolen anyone’s money nor conducted himself in a manner that has compromised India’s security or soiled its name.)
BJP leaders say the UPA government accepted their demand for a joint parliamentary committee probe into the 2G scam only after the Opposition dynamited the Winter Session of Parliament in 2010. True enough. But what has the JPC produced? In India and in Britain — from where we borrowed the idea — such inquiries have tended to be deeply partisan renderings of positions by political parties and have served little purpose. Since Opposition parties are drawing the JPC parallel (which amounts to sending parliamentary debate into cold storage), it is hard to resist the inference that these parties are afraid that their culpability — in the context of the CAG’s strictures — will stand revealed, for the screening committee that gave away coal blocks included top officials from states run by the BJP, CPI(M) and BJD.
Interestingly, unlike other NDA parties, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United) gives the impression of not shying away from a parliamentary debate on “Coalgate”. That, in fact, is a bold and constructive approach. In a democracy, should avoiding Parliament be a way to register protest, leave alone the sole way? Isn’t a genuinely well-run elected House the life-blood of democracy? The government should run Parliament and take its chances, and not allow its remit of drawing up legislation be sacrificed.
Comments
During the UPA 2 regime we
Rajgopal
23 Aug 2012 - 02:48
During the UPA 2 regime we have hardly seen a worthwhile debate! Congress party doesn't allow,BJP to speak and BJP doesn't allow Congress to reply!
The other parties are worried only about their state and fail to understand the national need.
The qualities of MPs have become so low that they can hardly comprehend the issues involved!
How can there be a 'healthy debate'?!
During the UPA 2 regime we
Rajgopal
23 Aug 2012 - 02:48
During the UPA 2 regime we have hardly seen a worthwhile debate! Congress party doesn't allow,BJP to speak and BJP doesn't allow Congress to reply!
The other parties are worried only about their state and fail to understand the national need.
The qualities of MPs have become so low that they can hardly comprehend the issues involved!
How can there be a 'healthy debate'?!
Post new comment