A wrecked Parliament

In the history of Indian Parliament, the current session is, perhaps, one of the most tragic — tragic, in fact, is a sympathetic expression about the state of affairs. At a general level, almost all institutions in India are passing through a crisis and gradually collapsing or being dismantled by the ruling elite. Among all the institutions, Parliament is an apex institution as it, theoretically, represents the sovereign will of the people. Many institutions, like commissions and committees, including the University Grants Commission, central universities and scientific establishments derive their power from Parliament and not the executive wing of the government.

The legitimacy and autonomy of all these institutions is dependent on the vibrancy and vitality of Parliament. The devolution of power is so structured that, the political executive, be it the Prime Minister, the Cabinet or the bureaucracy, who are subject to exigencies of the times, do not rupture these institutions and their working. This is more important when political power becomes totally partisan or lacks confidence in itself. The apprehension that executive can wreck institutions is coming true as Parliament is abdicating its responsibility since Parliament itself is in turbulence.

Building institutions is a laborious process and only those who have democratic convictions, a sense of history and a long term vision can contribute to institution-building. Several developing nations which came out of colonial stranglehold could not survive as democracies. Many of them crumbled and came under dictatorship, including military dictatorship. India is one exception. Whatever one may say about the quality of our democracy, our citizens enjoy a fair degree of freedom. The credit for this should go to the makers of the Constitution, particularly B.R. Ambedkar and the first Parliament.

A part of the credit, whatever the present Prime Minister may say, must also go to Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. Nehru knew that constitutional democracy in a country like ours can be reared only through a very conscious endeavour. Nehru ensured his full presence all through the Parliament’s sessions to consciously set a precedent for future. He was, of course, fortunate in having political stalwarts with high public credibility as members of the Opposition.India’s pluralistic culture and enormous diversity is so complex that there is no way to govern a country of this size except through deliberative democracy. Amartya Sen argued that Indians and the Indian culture are essentially argumentative. Serious arguments in Parliament on several public issues in the Fifties and Sixties gave legitimacy not only to Parliament, but to electoral politics. There were genuine ideological differences about the nature and direction of development.

Since the Congress chose a middle path, there was the possibility of attacks on the model from the rightwing and the leftwing. There was significant presence of the Communist Party along with socialists of various shades in Parliament. The rightwing had pro-market inclinations. Nehru knew about the strength of the Marxist approach and was equally conscious of the power of market forces. His line was to strike a balance. Parliament, thus, became not only a place for debate on governmental initiatives but a forum for serious ideological confrontation. Although at times there were personal comments, there was no rancour or personal hatred as is the case with present Parliament.

The gradual decline of Parliament started from the days of Indira Gandhi who, some analysts say, felt insecure in power or pressured from the masses to deliver on her promises.

The people of India waited for two decades for socialist transformation that Nehru and the Congress Party promised. Disillusioned as they were, they took to the path of resistance. Indira Gandhi took hasty decisions and in the process started diluting the deliberative politics that her father had so laboriously nurtured. The ideological direction that Nehru had set got derailed. In the process, the attack from the left and right also no longer remained ideological.

The market pushed its agenda through its propaganda abetted by global capital. The international financial institutions normally smuggle their policies without much of democratic debate. Most of the policies, the consequences of which we are suffering, were never seriously debated in Parliament. The Opposition parties, including the Communist parties, not having any clear alternative vision gave in to a neoliberal model. Otherwise one can’t explain how and why this nation agreed to commit agriculture, the main source of livelihood of a majority of voters of this country, to the World Trade Organisation rules, resulting in a major disaster. It is unbelievable that three lakh farmers have committed suicide in our country.

In fact, though the final round of Doha discussion is taking place in Nairobi exactly when Parliament in India has been in session, yet our reckless political Opposition had no time to debate the issue at stake. The minister of commerce was making last minute efforts to secure some safeguards to protect Indian farmers, but, paradoxically, in the same breath, we have given commitment on higher education at this very Nairobi meeting. Anybody who saw the consequences in agricultural sector should know how suicidal it is to commit higher education at this stage.

The politics of this country shifted from real economic issues to cultural terrain and during the last 16-17 months with the Bharatiya Janata Party and the so-called “fringe groups” trivialising life and death issues. The Opposition parties are not able to bring politics back on rails as they ran out of ideas. Sadly, the terms of confrontation in Parliament are determined by these fringe groups. Now it is personal vendetta, corruption of one or the other, Central Bureau of Investigation attacks smacking of political revenge that are at the centrestage.

The Opposition, instead of going to the people with issues, has taken to showing its strength by not allowing Parliament to function. With this crisis the ruling party is happy, the corporate world is happy, global capital doubly happy. The people of this country, including the youth, continue to be worried about their immediate future. Politics seem to be so lost in the present that no one seems to have any time to think of the collapse of the institutions.

The writer is visiting professor Bengaluru National Law School