Opinion Case for generosity

In Lok Sabha on Monday, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan suspended six Congress legislators from the House for five days for “unbecoming” conduct.

In Lok Sabha on Monday, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan suspended six Congress legislators from the House for five days for “unbecoming” conduct. She had reason to be offended. The MPs in question were forceful, literally so, in their attempts to draw the attention of the House to the lynchings of Muslims and Dalits — they went to the well, tore paper and repeatedly threw it towards the Speaker’s chair. In the aftermath, the Opposition seems united in its agitation against the Speaker’s verdict. But that’s not the only reason why Mahajan must ask herself if she was, indeed, too severe on the Congress MPs. She must do so primarily because she presides over a House in which the terms of debate are already tilted heavily in favour of the ruling combine by virtue of its overwhelming numbers, and the Opposition must struggle to be heard. In such a House, where the principal Opposition party has a numerically paltry presence, the Speaker can certainly go by the book, invoke 374-A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business — under which the six Congressmen were suspended. But she must arguably also heed a higher, unwritten rule: For a parliamentary democracy not to become a majoritarian one, a special effort is needed to ensure that the executive does not colonise all forums, to protect and preserve spaces of debate. This might entail showing greater patience and generosity to the Opposition, even an errant one, as in the case of the six Congressmen on Monday.

Unfortunately, several state legislatures in India today have become less hospitable to discussion and debate — and quite often, to the Opposition itself. There are instances of members of the Opposition being physically evicted and suspended for prolonged periods from assemblies for various reasons, not all of them persuasive. This has contributed to a winner-takes-all system in these states — the party with the electoral majority has right of way and institutional checks and balances are given the go-by. Parliament, however, despite signs of decline, has held up relatively higher traditions of debate, partly because it is more in the spotlight, but also because it has the benefit of a richer legacy and institutional memory. Today, however, Parliament must perform its role in a precarious environment. In 2014, the ruling regime received a massive verdict, and after that, it has not always acted in ways that show that it acknowledges the need for a give-and-take with the political opponent, or the value of argument and dissent. Well after the campaign was over and the election won, its war cry of a “Congress-mukt Bharat” did not fade. The university is seen as a space to be politically wrested and conquered. An attritive battle of supremacy between the executive and the judiciary is begun.

Advertisement

The institution of the Speaker acquires greater salience at a time when the space for debate is shrinking, inside the House and outside it too. The onus of magnanimity is on Sumitra Mahajan.