Speak, and be damned

Amitabh Bachchan, exhilarated by freedom, threatens Ajit: “Teja, mein jail se baahar aa gaya hoon! (Teja, I have come out of jail!)” Ajit replies icily: “Kaho toh phir andar karvaa doon? (Say the word and I’ll send you back in.)” I was reminded of that scene from Zanjeer as our parliamentarians demanded a privilege motion against Om Puri and Kiran Bedi.

You think you’re free, do you? Free to speak your mind and badmouth us? We’ll clap you in jail, you loudmouths. We have powers you can’t dream of.
Sure, Puri and Bedi were pretty silly. But in a mammoth rally people do get carried away. And their acts were pretty clean compared to some disgusting speeches that our politicians make. So what are these netas actually cribbing about? That their privilege to be respected is being flouted? Do they deserve that privilege at all?
So at the peak of Anna Hazare’s movement, facing thousands at the Ramlila Maidan, Bedi had lampooned netas by shrouding her head in a scarf and basically declaring that netas were hypocrites. Encouraged by the agitated crowd, Om Puri had said, among other things, that half of our MPs were “anpadh” (illiterate), “ganwar” (rustic) and “nalaayak” (incompetent). “Look at the way they fight with each other!” he said. “They throw chairs and mikes at each other!” And so the literate and refined MPs, who have so competently led us into this quagmire of corruption that the country is struggling to get out of, rose valiantly to object. Off with his head, they said, quickly demanding a privilege motion against Puri.
A breach of privilege is an act in violation of the privilege of either House of Parliament or their members. MPs enjoy privileges because the House cannot perform without unimpeded use of the services of its members. MPs are expected to use these privileges in the interest of the nation and the public. A privilege motion is granted precedence over ordinary business because it concerns matters of great importance or urgency.
Is the retired star cop Bedi’s veil dance or distinguished screen star Puri’s filmi speech such an urgent threat to the nation and its Parliament that they can face jail terms? Of course not. Do we not, while venting our anger, have the right to call our netas incompetent? And are Puri’s comments completely untrue? Not really. The words “anpadh” and “ganwar” have more than a dictionary meaning. In common parlance “illiterate” refers to uninformed, unaware people. And “ganwar” often means unrefined, crude, unsophisticated. The exuberant acts of our MPs that Puri referred to (as seen on television), such as throwing things at each other, exhibit that unrefined behaviour. The way MPs hit back with a jail threat further showcases their crudeness.
What we should have actually objected to was the use of “anpadh” as a term of abuse in general. In a country that has failed to educate almost half of its citizens even 64 years after Independence, the word “illiterate” should be a shame word for our parliamentarians, not for those denied education. Instead, our MPs were at pains trying to explain how many of them were graduates and how many had PhDs. In short, they were saying, see, we are respectable — how dare you call us illiterate? Busy emphasising their privileged position, they distanced themselves from the unfortunates who are indeed illiterate through no fault of their own. You could disrespect the illiterate, they implied, but don’t you dare disrespect us.
Fact is, we ordinary citizens (and extraordinary ones like Puri) don’t have to disrespect Parliament and its members. We have elected representatives who do it with style. More than 150 MPs have criminal cases against them. Of them, 72 face very serious charges. Among them are some MPs who want the privilege motion. Praveen Singh Aron, Jagdambika Pal and Kamal Kishor all face criminal charges. Dr Vinay Kumar Pandey has three criminal cases against him, including attempt to murder (section 307), rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint, assault or using criminal force to deter a public servant from his duty, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation. Harsh Vardhan also faces three criminal cases, including serious charges of rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation etc. Do these MPs really need to be protected from public speech?
In fact, our honourable MPs are so adept at dishonouring Parliament that we should all bring a privilege motion against them. They throw not just chairs and mikes as Puri observed, but also papers, shawls, anything handy. They snatch bills to be tabled and try to tear them up. They keep marching to the well of the House, screaming slogans. They call each other names. In short, they exhibit in Parliament what in ordinary life is called “unparliamentary behaviour”. And enjoy special privilege to waste our time and money.
In 2009, exasperated after days of disruptions and endless rowdy behaviour, then Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee had followed up his many warnings by referring 32 MPs to the Privileges Committee. For the first time ever, our MPs were being pulled up for violating parliamentary privilege. In a flurry, MPs cut across party lines to pressure the Speaker to withdraw his disciplinary action. “The Privileges Committee is for the protection of MPs, not for paralysing them!” they wailed. The Speaker withdrew the reference. MPs would not be punished for working against the national interest. The nation lost about `20 crore because of disruptions in that session.
The question is: is it time to get rid of the privilege motion as it stands today? It is not used in the interest of the people. And do we need another whip to thrash the already suffering people of India?

Antara Dev Sen is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com