Opinion Business as unusual

Even now,as the session ends,nothing concrete has altered — there is a stable government in the saddle,ministers appear settled — but there is now a distinct sense that in these weeks the legislature was trying to reassert itself and nuance its voice. If in the first few months after the summer general elections every day saw a few ministers making policy pronouncements,the Parliament session saw the opposition struggling to assert relevance and influence debate,and almost succeeding.

Two crucial reports,otherwise with tremendous potential for rupture and conflict,were finally introduced,the Liberhan report and the controversial Ranganath Mishra Commission report. It even in a sense underlined the importance of Parliament again as central to India’s politics. No doubt,as in all good parliamentary democracies,the government had its way,but the opposition too seemed to have had its say. Or at least the opposition parties coherently began the discovery of a voice on issues that concern the people like price rise and even climate change saw a varied and robust debate.

This session began with a surprise “victory” of sorts for the opposition as farmers closed in on Delhi to press their demands on sugarcane prices and the opposition closed ranks and rallied behind them. Overnight the government changed its mind and,in an effort to diffuse the situation,agitating farmers turned into slightly surprised,cheering farmers — the opposition was in fact stunned with the government’s agreement,and left reeling over what to do,given that just before the Centre agreed,the Congress’s Amethi MP casually said he had “taken up” the matter with the prime minister.

But the sweet taste of sugar was quickly forgotten,with the publication in this newspaper of what the Liberhan Commission had to say about the demolition of the Babri Masjid. It led to a furore,a split opposition raged and pushed matters to a point that the report was tabled,and even discussed. The debate was telling,from various points of view. The BJP debated it in a way that made it clear that identity politics remained key to its politics,though it would be used more like a dog whistle in future,as part of a we-didn’t-do-it-but-are-thrilled-it-happened line.

The impeachment proceedings against a judge (the second to have been started in a year,though the first was recommended by the Chief Justice of India) in this session herald another phase in the age-old see-saw between the

legislature and the judiciary. Some members of Parliament were emphatic that they were anxious to enforce “accountability”,though a deep urge to enforce the supremacy of the legislature informs the silent backdrop for the move.

This session also saw the “coming out” of Y.S.R. Reddy’s son,Jagan Mohan Reddy. Known to have been in a silent sulk so far,the dithering on the separate state by the Congress brought him out into the public focus and he walked across the aisle to shake hands with Andhra-Rayalaseema MPs of the TDP,now making it difficult for the Congress to take disciplinary action against him. It was Parliament that was the forum for this to play itself out. In fact,the rupture in most parties on Telangana (and a spate of other small states that erupted in the aftermath) found a forum for expression in the two Houses.

When it came to passing bills in a jiffy,this session too had its low point,three bills in 15 minutes. Another low could well be empty treasury benches,sometimes well into legislative business in the House. The opposition of course has said that the prime minister’s absence from the House (away on three overseas trips) may have encouraged more absenteeism in the treasury benches.

A particular low was registered when the Lok Sabha had to terminate Question Hour when a large majority of MPs against whose names questions had been listed were absent. The Rajya Sahba had a brush with such absenteeism too,but the House reacted promptly. Now an absentee MP’s question will be the property of the House,a neat way of retaining the opportunity for others to ask supplementary questions.

Speculation has also centred on the swiftness with which the session was adjourned sine die on Friday. There is a sense that the government refused to be caught on the back foot on Telangana and the question of smaller states,and this is why it may have been keen on allowing time to be frittered and quick adjournments.

Ever since the May results for the Lok Sabha,it has been advantage UPA-II in all elections. The BJP,the Left and other parties seemed bereft of issues,game-plans and even minor triumphs. This session unexpectedly found unlikely partners coming together,those who had little in common other than their fortunes and that itself made for a very watchable bout. So much so that it may have been one of the reasons that the government was keen to have “undivided UPA” home for dinner (with the SP and the BSP both in attendance). Now,Jharkhand results would be the watershed. The party/ coalition which wins this proverbial “small state” could well define the mood for the next,longer session of Parliament.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com