Order in the House

8220;If there is no question hour, there will be no session,8221; said the chairman, while adjourning the House. I seldom consult the rules of procedure. But that day I reached for the book. I found there was no specific provision for the suspension of question hour. If a member desired to move for suspension of rule 39 relating to questions, he could do so only with theconsent of the chairman.

There are several instances when consent was withheld in the past. The request to suspend the question hour was made in the Rajya Sabha for the first time in 1981. Some members wanted to discuss the situation in West Bengal arising out of the state government8217;s dismissal. The then chairman did not allow the motion. Even such issues as the Kutch Tribunal Award or the escape of Rajiv Gandhi8217;s killers were not considered important enough for the suspension of question hour.

When there was an effort to move a motion to suspend the question hour on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi controversy, the then chairman said: 8220;I would like to submit that suspension of question hour is a very, very serious matter affecting the interests of the house as a whole 8212; every member of the House, specially the back benches of this House. As you know, a decision has been taken at a conference of presiding officers that the question hour will never be suspended. Therefore, I would like to appeal to youthat this matter can be discussed after the question hour.8221;

Krishan Kant also took the same stand when he rejected the demand for suspension of question hour. His plea, as he elucidated in his chamber, was that the right to put questions to government was won after a long fight. The British conceded it through the Indian Council Act, 1892, during the freedom struggle. How can members afford to fritter away the right? He looked a worried man. He feared that the interruption of proceedings in Parliament might send a different message to the nation, which followed what happened in the two Houses closely.

Indeed, the question hour does not belong to the ruling party. It puts it on the mat. This is the only time when a government can be arraigned on its acts of omission and commission. Through supplementaries it can be exposed or indicted. So many ministers have been caught napping during the question hour. By barring the question hour, some members are usurping the right of others, who have put thequestions or who are interested in seeking further information on the same subject. The question hour also helps government feel the pulse of the people and tune its policies and actions accordingly.

What I object to is the precedent set on suspension of question hour. I am not blaming any particular party. During my 16 months as a member of the Rajya Sabha, I have seen all political parties interrupting the House proceedings at will. Over the years, I have watched similar scenes from the Press gallery. Occasions were fewer in the past but they were there. Of course, the persons were so tall that they took things in their stride. The disturbance, my experience says, is not at the spur of the moment. The strategy has been decided beforehand.

Take the commotion over the demonstration outside actor Dilip Kumar8217;s house. The Shiv Sena member in the Rajya Sabha had announced beforehand that he would not allow the House to function until he had his way. In any case, the matter came before the House. The chairmanhad allowed Vayalar Ravi to raise the question since he was the first to give notice. Hardly had he proceeded when the Shiv Sena member got up and shouted: 8220;Dilip Kumar is a pukkah Mussalman and a Pakistani8221;. He kept repeating this even when the chairman asked him to withdraw the remark. He had his way because his ranting led to the House adjourning, first till lunch, and then for the day.

At one time, the BJP looked like distancing itself from the Shiv Sena. But subsequently, it jumped into the fray. The entire episode was communalised. My feeling is that since the argument for freedom of expression had begun to prevail, communalising the whole matter was considered a better strategy. The BJP went along. The party had, however, a point when it said that those who did not allow the question hour on the bandh day had no face to criticise the stalling of proceedings by the Shiv Sena member. But the BJP and the Shiv Sena committed the same mistake when they interrupted the functioning of theHouse.

The settlement over the Shiv Sena member8217;s outburst left a vacuum. He tried to span it by declaring that at the instance of the chairman and as per his wishes, he was withdrawing his remark. But he did not use in his explanation the word apology8217;. True, he got away with it. But does that end the matter? What effect will it have on the people? The debate is a larger one 8212; that of values. If MPs go wrong, we must offer an unqualified apology because our example will be quoted and emulated by others.

I do not know how the nation has reacted to suspension of question hour and the adjournment of the House. Such instances make people cynical. They begin to feel that if Parliament can be so rowdy and so irresponsible, why should there be checks on them.

There8217;s a fundamental question here. Parliament is the highest body in a democracy. Public attention is focussed on it. Already it is characterised as a talking shop8217;. If it does not function, people will begin to attach less and less importance toit, which in turn will reflect on the democratic system.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies on MPs. They have to rise above pettiness and parochialism. Without their awareness of what is right and a desire to act according to what is right, there may be no realisation of what is wrong. They cannot run away from their responsibility to preserve the fundamental values of a democratic society. This is not a party matter, it is a national one.