Doing homework for House

After bitter verbal battles, heckling, acrimony and even physical assaults that characterised the winter session in both Houses of Parlia...

After bitter verbal battles, heckling, acrimony and even physical assaults that characterised the winter session in both Houses of Parliament, the final days saw parliamentary debate rise to respectable and informed levels, at least in the Rajya Sabha. The almost eight-hour debate on the Patents Amendment Bill, for instance, saw spirited and effective arguments both for and against the legislation, which momentarily silenced even the vociferous shouting brigade, which remained quiet and attentive.

This, however, was not so surprising, as speakers from major political parties had arrived armed with formidable facts and figures. It was no coincidence either that among the members, one was a leading lawyer, the other a well-known journalist and the third, a respected economist.

Is professionalism and biting analysis making its way into parliamentary debate at last?

Congress MP and lawyer Kapil Sibal, one of the star speakers on the Patents Bill, firmly believes that if any legislation has to be tabled andpassed in Parliament, the House must have relevant information. Sibal, therefore, has gone about collecting information in an orderly way 8212; he has hired a team of experts on a permanent basis who are in the serious business of research and analysis.

quot;MPs can8217;t function alone. They don8217;t know about every issue, so I have a team of professionals who back me up with information and give me analytical inputs on issues that I would like to speak on, like health, education, defence, foreign policy etc,quot; says a satisfied Sibal. quot;My team functions like that in a Senator8217;s office in the US, where a battery of experts monitors news and supplies all the relevant information to their elected official.quot;

Delhi-based journalist and BJP MP Arun Shourie may not have an expert team to assist him but, as he says, his quot;professional integrityquot; makes him know a subject before he delivers arguments on it on the floor of the House. quot;Whether I am writing or speaking in Parliament, I make sure I have all the relevant facts,quot; saysthe doughty Shourie. quot;So, when I was asked to speak on patents,quot; he notes, quot;I not only researched on patent laws that govern other countries, but also their experience8230; Naturally, there was not a murmur when I spoke8230;quot;

If parliamentarian discourse has been reduced to quot;slogan and stampedequot;, as Shourie describes it, the reasons for it are not far to seek. Former information and broadcasting minister and seasoned parliamentarian S. Jaipal Reddy agrees that debates in the House are quot;low on an averagequot;, but is also quick to point out that they have touched great heights too. quot;It depends on the subjects being discussed,quot; Reddy feels. quot;Both Houses have witnessed superior levels of debate, whether on defence, foreign policy or the budget. I made presentations lasting for hours on the GATT, for it is a very complex issue8230;from its history, to its philosophy, its relevance, its future etc.quot;

Story continues below this ad

However, Reddy admits that quot;the difference between high and low debates here is shockingly vastquot;. According to him, quot;Thereare reasons for this8230; In a developing world, the intellectual calibre of the people we elect is uneven. Two, the people who represent the larger sections of our society themselves come from the lower strata, so they are not necessarily articulate. And, lastly, as the legislative load is very heavy, it is not possible for every member to read every clause in every Bill.quot;

Shourie also bemoans the fact that debates and reason never have an effect on voting for or against a Bill, and that it is always the party whip that prevails. quot;Neither do presiding officers use their powers to control those who hold the House to ransom,quot; he says. However, Shourie too adds that the House has always had good speakers. quot;Pranab Mukherjee,quot; he says, quot;has an amazing memory for detail. S.B. Chavan and S.R. Bommai may be slow speakers but they are a pleasure to hear. L.K. Advani is the last word in precision. When Jayant Malhoutra says something, it is full of meaning8230;quot;

A Mumbai industrialist, Malhoutra, for his part,candidly admits that he builds his presentation from various sources, He also says he is astounded at the information that comes to him without even asking. quot;If you are an active MP,quot; says Malhoutra, quot;people give you information because they know you will use it effectively.quot; He also claims to rely on the library in Parliament which, he says, quot;is the best clipping service I knowquot;.

However, even Malhoutra, who is a founder-member of the United Parliamentary Group, agrees that MPs with a professional background may strengthen the level of debates but have not made a big difference.

Story continues below this ad

That doesn8217;t deter Sibal8217;s research team, though. It even utilises the recess, using it not only to prepare for the next session but also to produce inputs for various Congress committee meetings and legislative committees. quot;My research team works full time for me, they have an office with computers, books, Internet8230;I have told them they can order whatever is necessary to access information8230;and unlike other lawyer-MPs whoappear in court in the morning and the House in the afternoon I have given up my practice for becoming a full-time MP.quot;

CPIM leader Prakash Karat doesn8217;t find this quot;professionalismquot; surprising. quot;The Rajya Sabha always had a tradition of informed debates,quot; he says. quot;It only lagged in between when political parties sent their defeated MPs to the Upper House. While we may not back fashionable issues, we have always had a reputation for backing our arguments. Today, yes, more and more people are doing their homework before appearing in Parliament.quot;