No answers

The current form of our members of Parliament may not betray this,but they actually struggle to have their questions listed as starred,that is answerable by the concerned minister during Question Hour and open to supplementary queries by the MPs present in the House. Days after the Lok Sabha had to be adjourned because MPs against whose names as many as 17 questions had been listed were absent,the Rajya Sabha too has kept a tryst with a similar incident. On Tuesday,the first six questions listed could not be taken up because the appointed questioners were not present.

Political parties,of course,continue to make a statement about how seriously they take these parliamentary courtesies by allowing their MPs such lapses. But a certain discourse has gained strength that bears refutation. A justification for absence that is inevitably proffered is that,given the fact that the House manages just a few questions in the scheduled hour,MPs whose questions are listed way down amongst the quota of 20 each day have reason to believe that their turn will not come. So,the constant refrain that the two Houses should find ways to speed up Question Hour,so that more questions are covered every day. Moves are also afoot to amend the rules so that questions do not lapse on account of an MPs absence.

Hastening the procedure would be all to the good. But hearing out the debates on others questions is surely a courtesy that should be commonly extended. A great deal of homework goes into preparing answers for the ministers and anticipating supplementary questions. The process is presumably enriching all around,which is why Question Hour usually starts a Houses daily schedule. This spate of controversies over Question Hour,therefore,asks larger questions about attendance and how an MPs parliamentary record should be tabulated.