When India adopted parliamentary democracy after independence, the primary reason for this was that it could create a system of governance in which every citizen’s participation in power could be determined through their elected representatives, and the elected government could be held directly accountable to the people. The greatest advantage of this system is that any government formed on the basis of a majority also includes members in the minority. It is not without reason that our Parliament and Legislative Assemblies have a rule that every legislative act and bill introduced by the government will be debated in the respective elected houses, and the views of opposition MPs will also be sought.
The opposition will scrutinize government bills, evaluate them against the public interest, and submit its opinions to the government accordingly. Opposition members were also given the right to propose amendments to these bills. This was done so that the public’s input from all representatives, both ruling and opposition, can be incorporated into governance. Because the general public elects opposition MPs and MLAs, as well as ruling party MLAs and MPs, with their single vote, therefore, members of all parties, both ruling and opposition, were given equal rights in the elected houses. However, we see that today, more than seven decades after this system was implemented, a deadlock persists between the ruling party and the opposition in the Lok Sabha, preventing the country’s largest direct house from functioning.
This is the first time in independent India that neither the Leader of the Opposition, nor the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, are being allowed to speak in the Lok Sabha. The ruling party and the opposition are interpreting this situation according to their own political conveniences, but the message it sends to the country is profound. This message is whether parliamentary democracy in India is failing because the differences between the ruling party and the opposition have reached such a level that they are no longer in a position to engage in dialogue with each other. The other meaning of democracy is dialogue or conversation. In this system, solutions to even the biggest problems are found through dialogue.
In independent India’s parliamentary history, there have been numerous occasions when deadlocks have arisen in Parliament, but the country has been successful in overcoming them solely through dialogue. To maintain the functioning of the parliamentary system, the central government has a separate Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, whose primary function is to maintain coordination between ruling and opposition MPs during Parliamentary sessions, enabling direct, face-to-face discussions between the government and the opposition on public issues and matters of public interest. This dialogue or conversation in Parliament takes the form of debate, and each House has its own rules and regulations. The debates are conducted within these rules. However, the current budget session of Parliament is underway, and the Lok Sabha passed the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address by voice vote without debate. However, a similar situation occurred in 2004, when the government changed hands at the Centre and Dr. Manmohan Singh’s UPA government was formed. The only difference was that Dr. Manmohan Singh had stood up to respond in the House, but the opposition prevented him from completing his speech. This time, the opposition created such a situation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi could not even enter the House to respond. Even before that, the ruling party, citing various rules, created such a situation for the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, that he could not even begin his speech. Parliament never functions by stubbornness. Rahul Gandhi wanted to speak on the issue of national security, including the previous military conflict between India and China, and in this context, he wanted to quote excerpts from an unpublished book by retired Indian Army Chief General Naravane, published in a magazine. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla did not allow him to directly quote excerpts from this magazine. The need of the hour was that Rahul Gandhi, as the most prominent opposition leader, should have been discreet and delivered his speech in a manner that would have both complied with parliamentary rules and ensured his point was heard.
The parliamentary history of the Lok Sabha is replete with hundreds of examples of opposition leaders taking this stand. However, the deadlock created in Parliament by their stubbornness continues to this day. On the other hand, the government also took Rahul Gandhi’s statement with excessive seriousness, as General Naravane himself has stated in numerous TV and other interviews that during his tenure, China was unable to occupy even an inch of Indian territory. Of course, in a parliamentary system, the primary responsibility for running Parliament rests with the government, and the opposition has the primary authority over Parliament, but this does not mean that the ruling party should remain a mute spectator. Members also have the right to propose amendments to the President’s address and can suggest to the government what other topics they believe could be added to the address. This is because, once in office, the President no longer belongs to any one party. Although elected on a party basis, upon assuming the office, he becomes apolitical and assumes the role of guardian of Parliament. The elected government of any political party in the country is its own government, and therefore, it has been traditional that the motion of thanks on the President’s address is passed unanimously in both houses of Parliament. However, we have examples from both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
While the Lok Sabha was stalled, business in the Rajya Sabha continued as usual, although the opposition boycotted Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech on the President’s address. If this had not happened in the Rajya Sabha, it would not have tarnished the opposition’s credibility, as the Vice President is the Chairman of this house. However, new examples are emerging in Parliament these days that could cause disappointment among the public. This situation is not good for democracy. It seems that this time the national budget may have to be passed in the Lok Sabha without debate. This happened in 2004 as well. The only difference was that at that time the BJP was in the opposition and its leader was Shri Lal Krishna Advani.
