By Inder Jit

(Released on 23 July 1974)

Parliament’s Monsoon session has expectedly got off to a sorry start. The Opposition seems determined to exploit the sharply deteriorating economic situation to its maximum political advantage. The Prime Minister’s meeting with the Opposition leaders on Sunday virtually misfired. The Opposition is agitated and bitter and regards Mrs. Gandhi’s renewed call for cooperation to face the national crisis as “yet another exercise in rank hypocrisies and talk”. If the Prime Minister is really serious about cooperation, Opposition leaders say, she should not have insulted them and Parliament by promulgating ordinances on the eve of the session, a practice which, though not barred by the Constitution, has left successive Speakers unhappy. Unprecedented inflation, it is emphasized, has been a continuing problem for months. The heavens would not have, therefore, fallen if the Government had waited a little longer and first consulted the Opposition and, more important, Parliament before launching fresh measures to combat inflation.

The opposition leaders concede that the nation today faces an economic crisis which in its gravity is no less than any external threat faced since independence. They also agree with Mrs. Gandhi’s broad proposition, as put forward at Bangalore, that the need of the hour is for India to do what every nation does in war-time: mobilize all its resources and forget all differences to defeat the enemy. But they ask: “What will be the basis and form of cooperation? Is Mrs. Gandhi willing to accept the cold logic of the situation? A national crisis can be tackled only by a national will and a national will can be forged only by national Government. Is Mrs. Gandhi willing to form a national Government?” The opposition leaders seek specific answers and do not wish to be taken for a ride again, as during the 1971 war with Pakistan. They then gladly and patriotically offered every cooperation to Mrs. Gandhi who in turn, agreed to put off the impending elections to the State Assemblies by a year and even had a bill drafted for the purpose. But once the war ended, they allege, the agreement was conveniently forgotten...

Opinion on the desirability and practicability of a national Government at present is sharply divided. The opposition leaders, especially those in the Congress (O), feel that a national government is not only advisable but feasible – and that it alone can effectively deal with the crisis. Mrs. Gandhi, they suggest, should form without delay a government to put through a one-point programme: to wage war on inflation and save the country from chaos. Such a Government, it is further suggested, should be chosen by Mrs. Gandhi on the basis of proven competence and known integrity of individuals. “You cannot allow in black money and hope to fight inflation”, asserted one leader. But ruling Congressmen are equally clear that a national government is impracticable; it would undermine the effectiveness of the administration and accelerate the drift to chaos through confusion and compromises. Acidly remarked a Congress leader: “How do you fight inflation? Surely, there are more ways than one. Which will the national government follow?”

Most intellectuals and students of parliamentary democracy, who too have been participating in the quiet debate, are inclined to go along with Congress thinking on the subject. They feel that the British parallel does not hold good in our multi-party system. That the country needs today is a strong Government which knows its mind clearly and functions decisively. The proposed national government, they fear, would lack badly-needed cohesion and might only end up in making matters worse. Consequently, they would like Mrs Gandhi to give herself not a national government but a new and effective government. They would also like the Opposition to play its due role in a parliamentary democracy and not turn into drummer plays for the ruling party, and desired by some Congressmen. Parliamentary democracy implies an open and honourable struggle for power. It is, therefore, part of the democratic game that the Opposition should expose Government failures and exploit the situation to its advantage.

A national crisis can be tackled only by a national will and a national will can be forged only by national Government. Is Mrs. Gandhi willing to form a national Government?"

This does not, however, rule out the scope for cooperation and consultation between the Government and the Opposition. Indeed, Parliament provides the proper constitutional forms for such consultation. The great pity is that even after 27 years of freedom there is inadequate understanding of the sensitive mechanism of parliamentary democracy and the fact that it is essentially a government by consultation and debate. Few realize that it can function constructively only when the Government and the Opposition are willing to compromise and accommodate. Consequently, the Government, heady with its overwhelming majority, has repeatedly bypassed Parliament and reduced it to a mere rubber stamp, ignoring that it represents only 45 per cent of the votes polled in the 1971 general election. Even the Congress Parliamentary Party finds itself reduced almost to a big zero. It is seldom consulted and now meets generally twice mainly to hear the leader – on the eve of a session and just before it concludes.

Most of Parliament’s time is taken up in discussing insignificant matters. Vital or important issues are pushed through without adequate scrutiny or debate. Not long ago, a crucial amendment to the Constitution was rushed through the House in less than a day! Parliament should normally discuss only matters of general policy and leave details to be thrashed out in parliamentary committees. But we have ill advisedly discarded this healthy system. A good few parliamentary committees were set up in Mavalankar’s time. However, these were scrapped and we now have highly-publicised Informal Consultative Committees, which have been debunked as “so much thrash” by none less than Mr. M.N. Kaul, who was Secretary of the Lok Sabha from 1946 to 1964 and, on retirement, was appointed an Honorary Officer of the House in recognition of his services. The informal committees are presided over by Ministers, who usually turn up with a large number of officials and generally give out inane information with an air of great secrecy. No minutes are drafted.

Most of Parliament's time is taken up in discussing insignificant matters. Vital or important issues are pushed through without adequate scrutiny or debate. Not long ago, a crucial amendment to the Constitution was rushed through the House in less than a day! Parliament should normally discuss only matters of general policy and leave details to be thrashed out in parliamentary committees.

Thinking people feel that the present economic crisis provides a good occasion for a thorough reappraisal of Parliament’s functioning. If the sovereign Parliament is to exercise vigilance continuously and effectively, we must revive parliamentary committees and adopt a new course to promote meaningful debate. It will, for instance, not be enough to have a general discussion on the three ordinances promulgated to combat inflation. Instead, the Government should in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy come forward with a white paper on the grave economic crisis, spelling out the problem in all its magnitude and putting forward its own ideas and concrete solutions. The white paper should next be discussed by Parliament and finally referred to a special committee representing various parties. This committee would then go into the subject in detail and report back with concrete suggestions for final and approval of Parliament.

The great pity is that even after 27 years of freedom there is inadequate understanding of the sensitive mechanism of parliamentary democracy and the fact that it is essentially a government by consultation and debate. Few realize that it can function constructively only when the Government and the Opposition are willing to compromise and accommodate.

Simultaneously, steps need to be taken to constitute Parliamentary Committees for external affairs, defence, economic affairs, food and agriculture and other subjects. These committees, which would be under the control of Parliament, would enable Parliament at once to exercise vigilance and provide scope for consultations. Such committees are functioning well not only in the U.K. but also in the Soviet Union, visited recently by the Lok Sabha Speaker, Dr. G.S. Dhillon and the Secretary-General. All matters go before these committees which then report back to Parliament. Some reports even feel that India would stand to benefit if the committee system was honestly adopted and Parliament met only two days in a week during the session to discuss matters of general policy and devoted the rest of the week to committee work. Parliament would then utilize its time more usefully. Its control over the executive would tighten. The Government would no longer be able to get away with vague replies and bypass Parliament. India would then get the benefit of at least a national consensus, if not a national government in times of crisis. – INFA