Mr. Bimal Jalan Siddharth, thank you very much. I was hoping that Arun will open the discussion, but now that you ve called upon me, Arun do you want

Transcription

1 Mr. Bimal Jalan Siddharth, thank you very much. I was hoping that Arun will open the discussion, but now that you ve called upon me, Arun do you want to start? Yes let me. What I have to say is not really as a Member of Parliament; a nominated member, I have participated in the proceedings of Parliament, from the official galleries for a very long time. Also I just want to give this background so that what I have to say can be put in the context I do not have, sort of, the inside knowledge, of the working of parties of Parliament, of the kind that perhaps some other Parliament members have. I have [looked] at Parliament [and] worked with Parliament from outside, as it were, questions and so on for a very long time. Then, I had this tremendous privilege of being nominated [as] Member of Parliament, without any party affiliation; I do not participate in any party or party politics. I am giving this background because, the view that you re going to get is that of an observer; [an] observer of the working of Parliament. With this, sort of, brief background let me just make 2 or 3 points; one, what Siddharth said about standing committees being a very important instrument of looking at legislation [and] at things that are going on in our country, is absolutely valid in the standing committee. The most striking thing about the standing committee, and I ve had the privilege in participating in a couple of them, is really that, it s a non party fora, in the sense that, you take everyone which is generally by consensus, except for the minister, [the] minister doesn t appear before the standing committee normally; [but along with] the secretariat [and] secretary people lots of discussion take place. So, this is certainly true. Similarly, I am starting on a positive note first, that some of the debates that are held in Parliament, have been extremely good, and vital and very [well] observed. For example, something that happened two-three years ago, in the Indian nuclear debate, or something that happened, on say, the exercise of residential powers in Bihar etc, were very good; the discussion was good, effective and so on. Now, having made these points, and obviously, Parliament is the highest forum; Parliament is where [you can see] India s democracy. All parties are there, everybody is represented, and the most important thing is that, as members, they re all equal. In the sense, it is not the kind of paraphernalia with red lights and everybody running around; [where] the ministers are without red lights in the House of Parliaments. So, that is another good thing. All said and done, and I must congratulate, preface, if I may say so, congratulate both CPR, the Centre for Policy Research, as well as this parliamentary forum [PRS]. The amount of work that they ve done, in Parliament; briefing Parliament, briefing members and

2 so on, is extremely praiseworthy. Similarly, the present document, they have given on [the] measurement of effectiveness is excellent. It raises all the right issues and deserves consideration. I hope they will continue their work on the effectiveness of Parliament, and try to work on it to bring more effective use to it. Now, let me try and clear out what I really want to say; which is one word, that mind you, Parliament is absolutely ineffective in getting anything done that the people of India want to get done. You look at all the measuring criteria; all the effectiveness measuring criteria are in terms of quantities; how many times we have met; what you ve said; where we have met; what we have done; how many reports we have published; what we have read; what we haven t read; how much discussion [has taken place]; this is completely irrelevant to my mind. In the 60 th year of India s independence, if you look at the economic side; till 1981, the same Parliament, in the same house, which ever government was in power, said poverty will be abolished [by] 1981; we are in If you look at internal security, I don t want to put it only in the context of what happened last week, but last week has been a trigger, that has triggered people to a point that they have become fed up with politicians. You see, what they are saying [is that] the politicians are after all Parliament [and] Parliament is sinking where they are. So, what my message to you is, from what I ve seen in Parliament and after the events of last week, probably I would have not put it as bluntly, that Parliament is completely ineffective; but let me now illustrate why I say so. You know, there is only one line in our constitution, saying that the Prime Minister and the Government, who appoints his Cabinet, and the Cabinet will be collectively responsible to Parliament. Now, I want you to reflect, and we have some great media persons [here] that collective responsibility of the Cabinet to Parliament, do you see it? You don t. The Cabinet is suppose to [be] responsible to Parliament. The real fact is that, the Parliament is responsible to the Executive. I am subject to correction by Mr. Shourie, who is a very celebrated political person. The Parliament, cannot even decided whether it will meet! The Parliament, cannot decide how long it will meet! You ve held the second session of Parliament in December, which is the monsoon session, have we decided when it will meet, how long it will meet? We don t know. There is a thing called public business, which takes priority, not the parliamentarians. You do not know when the Parliament will be prolonged or adjourned. There have been cases when the Parliament has been adjourned because one of the members has threatened to resign and the Parliament was reconvened when that issue evaporated after several days. You ve had a case where the budget has been passed on a Saturday; you ve had a case when any discussion,

3 any day, has superseded anything else that was going to happen that day, because it is so called Government Business. Now, you look at this episode, the last week s episode, or anything else, we have had the resignation of the distinguished Home Minister of India, the distinguished Home Minister of Bombay,. But, supposing for arguments sake, they had not resigned, supposing the Government had accepted that it was all the way things happen in our country; we are all good, we are all brilliant and everything is going on because [where] law and order [is concerned] there is no resolution; it has been going on for a very long time. Hundred questions [would be] asked; starred questions, replies, something happens, blasts, stood in silence; every session of Parliament we have to convey our condolences to the family of those who were blasted. Just imagine, you are suppose to be collectively responsible to Parliament or rather the cabinet. Now supposing, you did not have this responsibility being fixed, we would have the same discussion, the same thing, same everything, they would have continued. Now we have the same cabinet, you can see how many people differ and how many people do some many things they don t know. So where is the collective responsibility of Parliament? I want to tell you, that the whole issue that I m talking about I want to reflect that what is the accountability to which Parliament can hold the Executive? The Parliament, as far as I ve seen does what the Executive wants it to do. You can disrupt Parliament, but your bill will be passed, that day, by voice vote in one minute, because it is Government Business. So where is the responsibility? The only, structure of the Constitution is to protect and all that, from 1975, that is true, but who is to establish that? The Judiciary not Parliament! Parliament will be adjourned, if something happens. Now, what is at the root? These are not stray things that happen, this is to my mind a systemic thing for which, you and I are responsible. Systemic thing is that you have empowered the parties much more than the legislatures or the Parliament as a body. Now how does it happen? The only time when the Parliament becomes supreme is when there is a trust vote and the Government has to be formed and the so-called majority. But, one major change that has occurred, is that, since 1999, we are more or less [witnessing] coalition pattern[s] of government. These are multiparty; 20, 30, 40 parties, much unlike Germany and elsewhere, where they have a handful of parties at most, we have any number of parties. This has come after the so-called Anti-defection Law; that, if you are a single member party, you can go from this side to that side, vote on this bill, walk out whenever you like, but if you are a member of a party you have to go by the whip you cannot speak, you are silenced. Now I want to ask you to reflect; who has decided on the top executives of our country? I want you to reflect, that, if there are three members who, are either in the government or have a party of their own, they can defect; like the states, I think Chhattisgarh

4 and so on, three independent[s] form a government. Some other state somebody can go from [here] to there. So, what we have done is given an impetus. The Rajya Sabha is no longer a Rajya Sabha, they should [not] be called [a] Council of States. In India, we continue to call it a Council of States but it s really a council of parties. We don t have a domicile restriction, you can not defy the person, you can not vote according to your own wish; there is no secured voting it s all open voting and they are [many] who are taking bribes and all, so now we are going to make is open. Now, what does this openness mean? The openness means, that now the parties decided, who will be the MP from where and how. You can be elected Rajya Sabha member from anywhere. You need not have visited that state, you need not have known that state, you need not have speak the language of that state, you need not have anything to do with the legislatures of that state. This is where we are now, I ve exceeded your time [limit] I m sure. The reason why I m mentioning this is because as an observer, and after the events of last week, which [have] triggered [all] this and made us all vocal. You know otherwise, I would have taken the soft line; I would have talked about other things, I would have written books etc which nobody reads; so you say what ever you have to say in forums and public, but the question is not measuring [the] effectiveness, the issue, which I asked Mr. Madhavan, CPR and Mr. Madhukar [to dwell on], is to measure the ineffectiveness of Parliament. What is it? How is it that the speaker and the vice president can not decide when they will meet? How long they will meet. What they will do? Government business just to sum up, that it is the parties, we are [an] oligarchy of parties, except at the time of election when I have a vote, you have a vote, to that Parliament is ineffective. [Two] the Cabinet is not responding, the Executive is not responsible to Parliament, the Parliament is responsible to Executive; three, legislatures are not free anymore to speak or do what is in the interest of our country; and four that there is no accountability of anyone for anything it promises in Parliament simply because we have at the top the doctrine of collective responsibility, which becomes most forceful when you want to hold accountability. It s collective responsibility; so if jobs are not created, people are not fed, if there is corruption it is all collective, if there is no reform it s collective, [if] there s no law and order it s a state subject, if there is a riot it is a state subject, [but] if it is planning, it is central subject where you have [a] vote or you don t have [a] vote. Who makes these decisions? Who holds [them] accountable? Whether we have had our say, today you can stand there and say I will abolish poverty by and when it doesn t happen in 2040 then, I m sure the successive generation will say, that we will abolish in I m sorry, but I thought that after last year s event I [would] share, some of these things very frankly, rather than peddling it softly, nicely and happily.

5 Thank you DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information. You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research ( PRS ). The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s). PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete. PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group. This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.