As the Lok Sabha is one of the two Houses, which make up the Indian Parliament, without understanding the latter, the former cannot be understood in perspective.
Indian Parliament
The emergence of Indian Parliament was inarguably the greatest event in India’s epoch since Independence. That explains the celebration of January 26 every year, as India’s Republic Day. The first Republic Day was in 1950, when India became the world’s largest democracy (in a numerical sense).That was the day the Constitution of India came into force.
If Parliament is thus a creation of the Constitution to uphold and honour its provisions and device mechanisms for speedy and efficient delivery systems, what one might ask is as the apex Constitutional body, as the “seat” and “embodiment” of Indian democracy, whether Parliament has honoured or reneged on its Constitutional mandates. Answers to this may be difficult in a legal sense. But from the perspectives of the citizens or the electorate who make and unmake Parliaments (in the sense of the Lok Sabhas constituted after different elections), it has not only reneged, but over the years has also reduced itself to “mobocracy”. Before going into the details, some observations on Indian Constitution will be in order.
The Constitution
The Constitution of India, was in the making even long before India’s independence, thanks to the untiring work of, among others, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the greatest intellectuals India ever had, that too from one of the most oppressed (socially, culturally, intellectually, and in every other sense of the term) untouchable castes, who began his emancipation politics through democratic means as early as 1919.
However, elaborate and systematic work on framing the Constitution began only as India as about to become independent. Framing the Constitution was the task of Constituent Assembly (the immediate predecessor of Indian Parliament), in which Ambedkar himself became the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and eventually the chief architect of the Constitution.
The Constituent Assembly was in session for about three years until the Constitution was framed in its final shape then, and ratified by it.
That the members who comprised the Constituent Assembly were intellectuals and statesmen of the highest order, and all the debates of fifty years or so in Indian Parliament pale before the Constituent Assembly Debates, should put all of us, Indian citizens, to shame. This is not a hypocritical harking back of the RSS type, but a forthright statement of a fact, the understanding of which is vital for understanding and enriching Indian Parliament.
The Lok Sabha
Whether one dwells on the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, the conclusion is bound to be the same. The only difference is, as the Lok Sabha consists of members directly elected by the people, it assumes greater importance.
In the initial years after Parliament came into existence, its both Houses had high respectability, accountability, and serious concern for nation building by sustaining and strengthening Indian democracy and addressing issues vital to India’s development. That was only to be expected, considering that those who represented Parliament then were drawn from the same team who framed the Constitution, and from among other leaders who fought for India’s freedom.
After Jawaharlal Nehru’s term as Prime Minister (he died while in office), that is, little over a decade after India became a Sovereign, Secular, Democratic Republic, both the Houses began their downhill journey.
It is in fact, through the details of this journey that one has to see the Lok Sabha, but that cannot be done in a short review. Briefly, there have been several reasons for this sordid Parliamentary saga. These include the following:
Lack of statesmanship, democratic concerns (leave alone democratic ethos and literacy), and Constitutional morality in the elected leaders.
One party dominance in Parliament, which enabled the party to easily bend or break democratic norms to suit party interests.
Rampant corruption, which rather than probing made Parliamentary Committees a millstone round Parliament’s neck; for, as corruption and this single party were like Siamese twins, all probes were pretentious banality.
Utter disrespect to Parliamentary and democratic norms by the elected members, and by the political parties, which fielded such candidates.
The dangerous nexus between corruption and criminality involving politicians, their hangers-on, bureaucrats, middlemen, fixers, and so on. Germane to this observation is the assertion by. V.P. Singh that terrorism only kills people, whereas corruption ruins the nation.
Rise of caste and communal politics, and use of caste and communal groups as vote-banks.
The Procrustean nature of Hindu communalism, which though perpetrated by a lunatic fringe of the Hindus, has devastating effects on the whole nation.
The State
While Parliament is the apex Constitutional body of India, one cannot judge the nation merely in terms of Parliamentary procedures and practices. As all Parliamentary proceedings have to be executed by the Ministry in power, the so-called Union Cabinet, Parliament can be judged only by the functioning of the State (read government).
That raises the question whether India is a soft or hard State. It is neither. On the contrary, it is corrupt, communal, and irresponsible to the core, which should be a poor reflection on Parliament. The articulation of the perfidies of power through, among others, communalism as combination of all the three is a clear indication of this.
If India had a responsible Parliament and responsible Government, the RSS madness called silanyas, would not have taken place at the instance of Rajiv Gandhi (later to turn into a Frankenstein to his own party, though one is not sure if this again is pretension), the Sangh Parivar hoodlums would not have reached anywhere near Ayodhya, and despite all the claims and counter-claims, Babri Masjid would have still remained in tact.
If India has a responsible Parliament and responsible Government history would not repeat as tragedy from this March 12 onwards. If Indian politicians do not learn from the past, the obvious reason is they do not want to. The demolition of Babri Masjid could have been avoided by strong preventive and pre-emptive State action. The argument of the then pouting, drifting, dithering Prime Minister that law and order is the responsibility of the State, was a crude joke of the century as India was about to enter the new Millennium.
Though the Constitution Review Commission is expected to submit its report on March 15, on various aspects of working the Constitution, Parliament, and related issues, the litmus test of the strength and integrity of Indian Parliament is how it pre-empts the movement of men and material for the proposed temple for a mythological character, an imagined and make-believe Rama, a “Rama on Trial” (that was the title of one of my contributions to The Hindu (Sunday Magazine), a Rama on the run, in a metaphorical sense, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid. That test would also tell the world, leave alone India whether Indian Parliament is worth its raison de’tre. Till then wait and watch. Wait and hope.