Opinion P Chidambaram writes: Life is a mystery, not always beautiful

Both Houses of Parliament began ‘normally’ on Monday, July 21. On the previous day, the government had convened the customary meeting of the floor leaders of political parties. The customary assurances of debate ‘on all issues’ and co-operation were exchanged between the government and the Opposition. Sadly, however, in the working of the Indian Parliament, there is currently no consensus between the Treasury and the Opposition on what, when and how the House may debate an issue of urgent importance.

Bone of contention

The Opposition in the Rajya Sabha usually insists on a debate under Rule 267. Rule 267 is a parliamentary device to defer the listed business and take up an issue of urgent importance. The motion is called an ‘adjournment motion’. There is nothing sinister about invoking Rule 267. However, the NDA has considered a debate under Rule 267 as equivalent to a ‘censure’ of the government. (Perhaps, some governments in the past also took the same view). In the last 11+ years, the ruling Establishment had allowed a discussion on a motion under Rule 267 last on ‘demonetisation’ in November 2016. Since becoming Chairman, Mr Dhankhar had not allowed any debate under Rule 267.

July 21 was no different, and what happened was straight out of Mr Dhankhar’s playbook. A lone BJP member had given a notice under Rule 167 to discuss the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor; several members of the Opposition had given notices under Rule 267 on the same issue. The Chairman admitted the motion of the BJP member as a ‘No-Day-Yet-Named Motion’ and rejected the other motions on the oft-repeated ground they were not in conformity with the Rules and the laid-down procedure. Commotion followed. (No one has been made wiser on how to draft a motion under Rule 267 that would be in ‘conformity with the Rules and the laid-down procedure’).

No farewell, no fanfare

The Chairman called a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) at 12.30 pm. Mr J P Nadda and Mr Kiren Rijiju attended representing the government. After some discussion, the meeting was adjourned to 4.30 pm. When the BAC met again, the two ministers were absent. Apparently miffed, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. He resigned at 9.25 pm, citing “medical advice”.

It is a telling commentary that no Party or MP implored Mr Dhankhar to withdraw his resignation. On July 22, the Deputy Chairman tersely announced in the House the “occurrence of vacancy” in the Vice Presidency. Clearly, the  government had decided to bid goodbye to Mr Dhankhar without fuss or fanfare or a farewell.

BJP’s ingratitude

The NDA government owed a lot to Mr Dhankhar. In American football parlance, he took upon himself the role of ‘tackle’. He defended the RSS/BJP’s position on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) and on the removal of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble to the Constitution. He criticised the Supreme Court for its judgement propounding the Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case). He questioned the theory of judicial review of laws passed by Parliament. He asserted the right of the government to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, debunking the proposition that the judiciary has primacy in such appointments (Second Judges case). He slammed the Supreme Court for invoking Article 142 to direct governors (and the President) to grant or refuse assent to Bills within 3 months. Contradicting Article 105, Mr Dhankhar asked members to ‘authenticate’ documents or data cited in their speeches. He defended sanatana dharma. He heaped fulsome praise on the RSS. His positions mirrored the conservative Right’s views, and ought to have pleased the BJP.

At different times, Mr Dhankhar belonged to the Janata Dal, Samajwadi Janata Party (of Chandra Shekhar), Congress and BJP. His appointment as Governor of West Bengal resurrected his political career. His unwarranted run-ins with the state government may have burnished his pro-BJP credentials but tarnished the office of governor. His surprise elevation as Vice President showed the faith reposed in him by the RSS/BJP to bear the right-wing flag. His conduct of proceedings earned him the distinction of being the first Chairman against whom a No Confidence motion was moved.

What broke the cordial ties between Mr Dhankhar and the RSS/BJP? The idea of a motion to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma had germinated in a meeting of the Congress parliamentary strategy group on July 15. Signed by 63 members, the Opposition left Mr Dhankhar no choice but to admit the motion on July 21 (while a similar government-inspired motion had been lodged in the Lok Sabha on the same day). The motion forced Mr Dhankhar to act on the motion to impeach Justice Shekhar Yadav that he had held back for seven months. The speculation is that Mr Dhankhar’s decisions on the two motions broke the camel’s back. I disagree; the two motions were light straws. Obviously, there were more.

Life is a mystery, and sometimes ugly.