Distantly Close | The monsoon session's no-trust motion debate failed to enrich
Parliament’s memory is replete with acidic darts, persuasive counsel and unbridled critique of the government. Expunctions once served the purpose of a shield
Not all good public speakers are heavyweight parliamentarians. The latter art needs poise, modulation, marshalling of facts and a logical flow of ideas in words that aren’t meant as much to rattle as to make the other side reflect and introspect. Several big names – on either side of the aisle – failed on that score in the debate on the no-trust motion the Opposition brought against the Narendra Modi government in the Lok Sabha.
The back-and-forth across three days lasted a little over 21 hours. It culminated in the motion’s defeat, a walkout by its movers and the suspension of leader of Opposition (LoP) Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury for a pun misapplied or misunderstood as one that seemingly compared the Prime Minister (PM) with the fugitive diamantaire, Nirav Modi.
His comeuppance is a lesson nevertheless that parliamentarians must speak in languages they are comfortable with, or risk an oratorical flourish going haywire the way it did in the case of the Congressman from Bengal.
He used the word ‘nirav’, which in Hindi means ‘shabdrahit’ (devoid of words), to question Modi’s silence on Manipur. Not known to be at ease with the language, he failed to deliver a clean jibe. For a similar lack of cogency, he had found himself in a spot for referring to President Droupadi Murmu as ‘rashtrapatni.’ As that had happened outside Parliament, he could close the chapter with a prompt apology.
Chowdhury’s suspension is unprecedented because as LoP, he heads the crucial public accounts committee the function of which is to watch whether the government spends the money granted (voted) by parliament within the scope of the demand.
Besides, his suspension from the House isn’t time-specific. It’ll last until the verdict of the privileges committee before which he’ll need to establish that the statement he had made wasn’t out of ‘mens rea’, a Latin word that's legalese for “guilty mind” or “criminal intent.”
Be it as it may, the alacrity with which the Treasury moved the resolution accusing the key Opposition figure as habituated recalcitrant drove home the acerbity pervading the debate.
The repeated interruptions, the sloganeering from across the chamber begged the question: Could the Opposition make its case and hold the government – with an overwhelming majority and proportionately much more time in the House – accountable? The answer is a big no!
The Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) grouping’s sole achievement was in making the PM come to the Lok Sabha to respond to the motion after a no-show throughout the entire monsoon session. What, however, made it seem an exercise in futility was their decision to walk out in the middle of Modi’s reply, a good part of which he spent rubbishing the newly formed grouping and the political ‘contradictions’ inherent to its construct. That meant that the Opposition let him have the last word at their expense.
Barring a few speeches that stood out, most members spoke as if they were addressing public meetings. That unfortunately included the PM and the recently rehabilitated Rahul Gandhi. Both failed to rise to the occasion, one as a statesman and the other in presenting himself as a parliamentarian with gravitas.
The few who rose above the pell-mell were easy to spot. Modi was the lead defender from the side of the government in the debate. But Union home minister (HM) Amit Shah shone in contrast as a parliamentarian. His two-hour speech was only a few minutes shorter than that of the PM. Shah spoke at length on Manipur, in contrast to his leader’s generic observations, besides elaborating on the government’s achievement over the past nine years.
His weak reasoning for letting the Manipur chief minister continue (as he was heeding the Centre’s counsel), however, needed closer scrutiny. That did not happen as the Opposition had walked out.
As the Treasury had no dearth of time, other ministers who took the floor – Smriti Irani, Nirmala Sitharaman, Jyotiraditya Scindia and Kiran Rijiju – repeated the facts and figures proffered by Shah. Such was the abundance of time available to them that the HM offered, the Speaker allowed and Chowdhury agreed to take time from the government’s quota to speak. Shah did that as an act of generosity as the Congress’s lead speaker in the debate was its deputy leader in the House, Gaurav Gogoi, who is an MP from Assam.
In retrospect, it seemed a crafty move, given Chowdhury’s proclivity to tie himself in knots. A confirmation of that came when the PM poked fun at Chowdhury messing up the opportunity offered gratis to him: Sab gud ka gobar kar diya (Roughly: "He messed it up".)
With the Opposition absent, neither did anyone ask nor did anybody say if the idiom met the test of parliamentary speech in the context it was used.
To be fair, the choice of Gogoi as the Congress’s main speaker proved to be a sound decision that showcased his promise as a parliamentarian. Focused on the turmoil in Manipur which has deepened ethnic divisions that’ll take years to heal, he spoke softly, assuredly and in sync with the norms of the House.
While Gogoi was on his feet, the cameras panned several times on the Treasury. The expressions on display there were an endorsement of Gogoi’s parliamentary etiquette and articulation. “He’s a discovery,” admitted a senior BJP leader to this writer. The praise was as much in abundance from constituents of the INDIA formation.
Others who stood up for the motion from the Opposition included the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP’s) Supriya Sule, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)’s Kanimozhi and the Trinamool Congress (TMC)’s Mahua Moitra. The all-women trinity was distinctive in the limited talk time available to them. They touched on Manipur but also spoke on issues relating to their states to take on the government. These patches of brilliance were like individual centuries in a drawn cricket test match, if not entirely lost for want of a robust gameplan.
The AIMIM’s (Al India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen) Asaduddin Owaisi, who backed the no-trust from outside the INDIA ambit was as impressively upfront as he always is.
Owaisi reminds parliament veterans of the late GM Banatwala, a seven-time Lok Sabha MP from Kerala. Adept at making the most of the limited time available to him, he used to be a delight to hear, his reasoning delivered in a booming tone resonating even with those who disagreed with his party, the Indian Union Muslim League.
But Banatwala belonged to an era when Parliament was a repository of wisdom, tolerance and mutual respect. These traditions bequeathed by the first generation were built upon by their immediate successors. Himself an archetypal parliamentarian, former President Pranab Mukherjee was a learner at the feet of Hiren Mukherjee and Bhupesh Gupta, legendary figures from the Left.
The formidable Arun Jaitley of the BJP was so candid in his praise of “Pranab da” that he’d often talk of his help in legislation-making while serving as chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on home affairs during former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee’s time. A strong believer in parliamentary democracy, Mukherjee didn't let ideological differences come in the way of facilitating law making.
The list is long. It’s embellished by men remembered for their learning, repartee, wit and humour. Imagine Ram Manohar Lohia getting away with calling Indira Gandhi a ‘goongi gudiya’ (roughly: mute doll) and George Fernandes describing her as a “congenital liar.” The bonhomie between P V Narasimha Rao, Chandrashekhar and Vajpayee, who all rose to be prime ministers, was a shining feature of parliament when they were in the House together.
When they rose to speak, the House heard in rapt attention. That protocol was available as much to leaders from the communist-socialist stock such as Indrajit Gupta, Somnath Chatterjee, Piloo Mody and Madhu Limaye. Parliament’s institutional memory is replete with their acidic darts, persuasive counsel and no-holds-barred critique of the government. Expunctions weren't then the norm. They were at best a shield, not a sword!
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
