Upper House rules

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan could not have known the storm hed create when he suggested the abolition of the Rajya Sabha. Within hours of lamenting the undemocratic character of the Upper House of Parliament on Sunday,he rolled back his attack. But Chouhans discontent earlier in the day is interesting,as is his suggestion that since the Rajya Sabha had lost its original character,it be done away with and the Lok Sabha expanded to accommodate nominated members.While Chouhan vastly overstated the irrelevance of the Rajya Sabha,he did inadvertently shine a light on its role in our parliamentary system. In a vast and plural country like India,a permanent House is essential for federal stability and conti-nuity. Upper Houses enjoy diverse powers,but they are almost always permanent bodies,with staggered elections rendering them less susceptible to electoral waves at the national level. In the Unites States presidential system,for instance,the Senate has powers to ratify treaties and confirm key appointments. But members are popularly elected. In Britains House of Lords,they are not. Rajya Sabha members are indirectly elected by state legislatures,though rules were changed in 2003 when the secret ballot was abolished,giving the party whip sway,and when the domicile requirement was dispensed with. There is indeed often disquiet amongst state units about how their votes are harnessed by party chiefs. However,as a session of Parliament has just been washed away,perhaps there needs to be an even more urgent debate on the role of the House. Given its more durable character,as too its powerlessness in making and breaking governments,the elders need to assert their relevance. Instead of being a shadow of the Lok Sabha,they could work out mechanisms to keep the processes going that is,if they want to be insulated from provocations like Chouhans.