India’s non-violent political struggle for freedom from British rule was sought to be emulated by many former colonies. It is doubtful, however, if any of them would choose to follow this country’s parliamentary practice. The way it has evolved betrays few signs that our Parliament, while being the repository of some great traditions, is really the legislation-making institution of a country which should be resolved with a sense of urgency to lift millions out of poverty and set them on course to a life of dignity.
The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha resemble more a factory whose workers are ready for a flash strike at any time. At its most benign, a protest in the Indian Parliament against a government measure typically involves full-throated slogan-shouting by large numbers of MPs whose immediate object is to bring all business to a standstill. The most virulent form of protest is one in which the Opposition parties simply decide collectively that Parliament shall not be allowed to function. This is what has been on display most of this week as a consequence of the Opposition’s demand that the unconscionable rise in the price of essential commodities must only be discussed under an adjournment motion and no other rule. People do not have too high an opinion of our politicians in any case, and seeing the latter shy away from their place of work is hardly likely to impress the electorate.
It is a good sign that our MPs — who move heaven and earth to get elected but show little inclination as a body to take their core function of lawmaking seriously — have decided to highlight the cause of ordinary Indians groaning for two years under a regime of extraordinarily high prices of essential goods. But if the protesting MPs were serious, and meant what they said when they criticised the government’s policies that presumably led to the jump in prices, they would have forced discussions at several levels, including in the parliamentary committees, on the broad question of economic and monetary policies that have created the present situation. They should have come prepared not just with their views but also with data and analysis that will stand scrutiny. This is the kind of hard work most of our MPs give little evidence of being capable of. Creating mayhem is a lot easier. There are no costs attached as MPs seldom win or lose elections on the basis of their performance in the House. In effect, once elected, our MPs earn the dubious licence to conduct themselves in Parliament without purpose that may be linked to hard, unglamorous work on behalf of the people they represent.
This was not always so. Possibly that is because parties nominated individuals with a track record of hard work as social and political activists. The trend has certainly changed in the past quarter ce­ntury. Whatever the quality of our MPs these days, all parties and presiding officers need to pay attention to reforming work sc­h­edules and work patterns. Compared to legislators in Western Eu­rope or North America, our MPs work too few hours even at the formal plane in terms of the number of days in the year that Pa­rliament is in session. Of this, an inordinately high proportion is lost on account of protest-related work blackouts. It is necessary for our Parliament and state Assemblies to frame rules that will in­crease the allotment of time for discussion and debate both on the floor and in committee. Work days must go up. It must be ma­de incumbent on parties to nominate every one of its MPs to committee work and to link their performance in these to renominati­on. This would be a major step, and parties need to give it due co­nsideration. The people’s work suffers if legislators don’t reform.