Strange! In a Parliamentary Democracy, Parliament not allowed to debate

Strange! In a Parliamentary Democracy, Parliament not allowed to debate

In a Parliamentary democracy, like in Britain and India, Parliament is sovereign, representing the collective will of the people. Prime Minister is the Head of the Government. Parliament is a forum where public issues are raised, discussed and debated to elicit information from government and crystalize opinion, enabling government to make informed policy decisions, based on consensus from cross sections of both the Houses of Parliament. Though it is essentially a government by majority in the House of People, the opposition has a legitimate role to play in a Parliamentary democracy of ensuring accountability of government. The Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is individually and collectively answerable to Parliament. The Opposition adapts various methos of drawing government’s attention to issues, through Question Hour, Zero Hour, adjournment motions, censure and no confidence motions. In Britain, the Leader of Opposition in the House of Commons is considered alternative Prime Minister.

 

The sharp decline of Parliament in India since 2014 is a matter of serious concern. The rules and procedures and parliamentary conventions and practices are grossly violated.  The voice of dissent is suppressed. And the opposition is reduced to a non-entity, in as much their opinions do not matter while passing legislations and formulating policies. Be it Rafale deal, demonetisation, GST, nation-wide harsh lockdown without prior notice; revoking the Article 370 and dismembering Jammu and Kashmir; CAA, Pegasus, to name a few, the government didn’t concede the opposition’s demand for discussion.

 

India shares about 3500 km border with China from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. In May 2020, Chinese and Indian troops engaged in aggressive face--offs and skirmishes on the LAC at Galwan Valley in Ladakh. The clashes between the Chinese and the Indian forces on 15 June resulted in the death of 20 Indian soldiers, including Col. Santosh Babu. China has encroached on the disputed territory of the LAC in Eastern Ladakh pushing back the Indian army deployment deep into the Indian side of the LAC, India conceding the buffer zone to the Chinese. The Indian troops are unable to access the huge territory in Eastern Ladakh they earlier patrolled. India has not succeeded in restoring the status qua ante since then despite 16 rounds of talks held between military commanders of India and China.  While this being the position in Ladakh, on 9 December 2022, the Chinese forces tried to occupy by force Yangtse in Tawang Sector of Arunachal Pradesh resulting in Indian troops clashing with a huge contingency of some 300 PLA of China and injuring the jawans.

 

On 20 December, the military officials of India and China held the 17^th round of talks, but of no avail.  India even didn’t raise the clashes in Tawang.  And the joint statement issued says the talks were ‘frank and in-depth…the two sides agreed to maintain the security and stability on the ground in the Western Sector.” Professor Jabin Jacob of Shiv Nadar University, argues that ‘the subsequent resolutions achieved over several rounds of military-to-military talks between the two sides, appear to institutionalise a system of buffer zones, undermine the advantages of India’s infrastructure build-up.” (IE 14/12/22).

 

China is negotiating from a vantage position, while India takes a weak position. And when China continues to pursue a hostile expansionist policy towards India, ‘India is importing from China four times more than what India exports to China. According to former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, in 2021-222, the trade deficit stood at $ 73.31 billion, 174 Chinese companies have registered in India, and 3,560 Indian companies have Chinese Directors on their Boards (IE 18/12/22). And the opposition is ‘asking the government to disclose the names of Chinese firms which had reportedly contributed to the PM CARES Fund’ (ET, 14/12/22).

 

Ever since the Parliament started the Winter session on 7 September,2022, and opposition parties moved adjournment motions every day in both the houses demanding discussion on the clashes at Tawang, but the Presiding Officers rejected the demand. The government is not allowing the discussion in Parliament under the garb of ‘national security.’  It is strange. In a Parliamentary democracy, Parliament is not allowed to debate on national security. For that matter, the government invokes the bogie of ’national security’ on any issue that it finds inconvenient and wishes to hide the information to disallow discussion and debate. .It is a very frustrating and humiliating experience for the opposition.  If not the Parliament, which other body could debate the issue of public interest?

 

This stand of the government has emboldened the totalitarian Red China to continue incursions on the boarders at the time and the place of its choosing. In Rajya Sabha, Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar rejected 12 notices under Rule 267 by the Opposition members demanding debate on the Indo-China borer conflict on the ground that it is a ‘sensitive’ matter.  And on 23 December, both the Houses were adjourned sine die, six days before the schedule, without any discussion on the Chinese incursion that took place when the Parliament was in session. It is an insult to the Parliament. The treasury benches and the Presiding Officers are reduced to stamping authoritarianism of the ruling party by delegitimizing the Parliament and the opposition.

 

The government’s refusal to divulge details to Parliament about the Chinese incursion flouts constitutional sovereignty, from which Parliamentary sovereignty is derived. Indian citizens have a right to know what took place and if any Indian territory was ever ceded to China during the endless talks. China violated all the bilateral talks by intruding at the LAC and forcefully occupying the disputes territories.

 

And ‘national security ‘cannot be used as a ploy to deny information to the nation. The Modi government is denying information to its own citizens as it is afraid looking weak before the belligerent Chinese. The opposition alleges that ‘Narendra Modi’s naivete and bad judgment has imperiled national security vis-à-vis China and that his personal diplomacy was aimed at his own image building which has hurt India’s interest’(TOI 23/12/22)

 

On 19 June,2020, Modi said: ’No outsider has intruded into Indian territory nor was an outsider inside Indian territory’, when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This makes China to justify continuing the incursions at different locations on the LAC, systematically strengthening its military infrastructure like troop bunkers and helipads, gun and missile positions, roads and bridges, communication and radar sites, and even settlements all along the LAC, stretching from Eastern Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh.

 

It is interesting to recall the Chinese aggression in 1962 and how Prime Minister Nehru responded to a demand for special session of Parliament. China attacked India on 20 October. India declared national emergency on 26 October. And the first-time Rajya Sabha member of Bhartiya Jan Sangh Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss the Chinese aggression. His party had very few members, while the ruling Congress had two-third majority and the government could have rejected the demand. However, Pandit Nehru accepted his demand. He was advised to hold a ‘secret session’. Being a true democrat, he turned down the advice saying the issues before the House are of ‘high interest to the whole country.’

 

Accordingly, a special session of Parliament was convened on 8 November, while the Indian troops were fighting the enemy at the borders. It was marathon debate that lasted several days in which some 165 members participated.  Vajpayee launched a scathing attack on the government’s foreign and defence policies. On 14 November, the Parliament adopted a resolution unanimously pledging to get back the territory occupied by Chinese to the last inch.

 

The text of the resolution:

 

"This House notes with deep regret that, in spite of the uniform gestures of goodwill and friendship by India towards the People's Government of China on the basis of recognition of each other's independence, non-aggression and non-interference, and peaceful co-existence, China has betrayed this goodwill and friendship and the principles of  [Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence The Panchsheel) Panchsheel which had been agreed to between the two countries and has committed aggression and initiated a massive invasion of India by her armed forces.

 

"This House places on record its high appreciation of the valiant struggle of our armed forces while defending our frontiers and pays its respectful homage to the martyrs who have laid down their lives in defending the honour and integrity of our motherland.

 

"This House also records its profound appreciation of the wonderful and spontaneous response of the people of India to the emergency and crisis that has resulted from China's invasion of India. It notes with deep gratitude this mighty upsurge among all sections of our people for harnessing all our resources towards the organisation of an all-out effort to meet this grave national emergency. The flame of liberty and sacrifice has been kindled anew and a fresh dedication has taken place to the cause of India's freedom and integrity.

 

"This House gratefully acknowledges the sympathy and the moral and material support received from a large number of friendly countries in this grim hour of our struggle against aggression and invasion.

 

"With hope and faith, this House affirms the firm resolve of the Indian people to drive out the aggressor from the sacred soil of India, however long and hard the struggle may be."

 

When Pandit Nehru appealed for military aid, some 80 heads of states, including Pakistan, Israel, France, Britain, the United States and the USSR, had pledged support to India, even Pope XXVIII openly expressing his sympathy and support for India. And on 20 November, China announced unilateral ceasefire and withdrew its troops from the Indian territory before the military aid from other countries could reach India. It was the support of the Parliament and the entire nation and the overwhelming sympathy and outpouring support from countries the world over, cutting across the ideological divide of the two hostile camps of the cold war, that isolated China in the community of nations and forced to end the war. And, God forbid, If China commits full pledged aggression on India today, the world will not pledge such massive support for India.  

 

All the healthy conventions and practices that Prime Minister Nehru established to nurture the Parliamentary democracy have gone for a toss. Pandit Nehru would attend every sitting of the Parliament, stamping his moral authority, more often intervening to answer the questions raised by opposition members. In Britain, every sitting Wednesday, Prime Minister takes questions from the opposition MPs and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and answers them impromptu. In contrast, Narendra Modi doesn’t attend Parliamentary sittings, showing scant respect to the very Parliament that made him the Prime Minister.