It would not be an exaggeration to say obstructions Define Indian Parliament. The numbers support this. an amount of Time Losers due to disruptions in Parliament were steadily increasing by 5% of working hours in the 11th session Lok Sabha From (1996-97) to 39% in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14). The year 2011 was particularly bad when 30% of the available time was lost due to disruptions. A year ago, the entire winter session was ruined due to the uproar over the 2G scam.
Although after the disruption BJPMajor victories in the 2014 and 2019 general elections, there is always the danger of disorder. Disruption usually occurs when a government policy or national issue has united the opposition. The one-month winter session of 2016 was the least productive in the 16th Lok Sabha (2014–19), when the opposition united against the Modi government’s sudden and wrongful decision to demonetise high denomination currency notes, which was announced in a few days. was done earlier. Session started. Interruptions resulted in 92 hours or 73 percent of the session wasted. In fact, despite a one-party majority, the 16th Lok Sabha did 20% more work than the 15th Lok Sabha, but 40% less than the average of all full-time Lok Sabhas.
behavioral issues
However, there has been a long history of disruptions in parliament. When India’s first Lok Sabha met in 1952, there were high quality debates on issues of vital importance to independent India. But it was not the case that only quiet and reasoned debates were witnessed in the Parliament premises. Soon after the first Lok Sabha was called in 1952, an amendment to the controversial Preventive Detention Bill brought, in the words of veteran journalist BG Varghese, “an unprecedented uproar”. During the debate on preventive detention, a marshal even approached KA Nambiar, a member of the Communist Party, to evict him, but he responded by shouting, “I will not. You will have to take me by force.” It was left to one of India’s best parliamentarians and fellow communist, Hiren Mukherjee, to placate the Speaker. The Communists then staged a walkout only to return later in the day.
A decade later, during the Third Lok Sabha in 1963, when the Official Language Bill was introduced, it was strongly opposed by some opposition members, which the paper described as the first time such a “chaotic scene” in the House. Two members, including Swami Rameshwaranand of Bharatiya Jana Sangh, were forced to oust the watch and ward staff. Another member grabbed the microphone and abused the speaker and the prime minister. Nehru, who had always been a strict disciplinarian, strongly opposed this behavior, noting: “I don’t know that gentleman has at least a concept of what Parliament is. Democracy and how one should or should behave.”
In fact, as one foreign journalist observed, it was Nehru, rather than the Speaker, who “took the reins of the House” and when the Speaker’s plea was ignored, it would be “Nehru’s bitter voice that overcame the ruckus and Restored the opposite limit”. An unrepentant Rameshwarananda would later light a “holy fire” in the Central Hall of Parliament and set a copy of the bill on fire. When the Speaker informed him that it was “prohibited” to light a fire inside the Parliament House, Rameshwarananda erected a position outside the gate for the visitors and burned a copy of the bill.
Earlier that year, some members attempted to disrupt the President’s address to both houses, which was delivered once a year and considered one of the most important and sacred events of the parliamentary programme. A committee was constituted to inquire into the incident and in its report laid down certain norms for the conduct of the members during the President’s address. It said it was “a constitutional obligation on the part of the members to hear the President’s address with decency and dignity” and reiterated that the House could punish a member if, in its opinion, a member “acted in an unbecoming manner”. is or has acted” in an unqualified manner of a member. ,
disruption is the new normal
After Nehru’s death in 1964, it seems that even his warnings about parliamentary decorum were forgotten. Fears were raised by Parliament’s historian, WH Morris-Jones, who said that Nehru’s death was likely to mark “the end of a period” for the Westminster model. From the Fourth Lok Sabha (1967–70) – the first without Nehru attending the House – walkouts and disruptive behavior became increasingly common. Former General Secretary of Lok Sabha Subhash Kashyap points out that the culture of parliamentary politics changed from the 4th Lok Sabha and it was “mask and gloves off” politics.
The floor of the Lok Sabha was not the only place of protest. The members wanted permission to hold protests and even hunger strikes inside the Parliament premises. In 1964, Communist MP AK Gopalan went on a one-day hunger strike in the lobby of Parliament to protest the lack of food in his home state of Kerala. In 1966, Rameshwarananda led a crowd protesting cow slaughter towards Parliament in an attempt to storm the premises. Seven people were killed and over 100 were injured in police firing on the protesters. The Upper House was also no exception to such protests. In 1971, the unstable Raj Narayan – who filed a case of electoral malpractice against Indira Gandhi, one of the proximate causes of the Emergency, and defeated her in the 1977 general elections from Rae Bareli – had to be forcibly removed from the upper post. House after disobeying the order of the Chairman
The reasons for the progressive increase in disruptions are varied. Indira Gandhi’s years can be seen as a pivotal moment to undermine institutions, including Parliament. Atal Bihari Vajpayee once said, “Pandit Nehru stayed away from home only when it was absolutely unavoidable. She (Indira) comes to Parliament only when it is necessary. This prompted eminent political scientists, Lloyd and Susan Rudolph, to concluded, “Nehru was the schoolmaster of parliamentary government, Indira Gandhi was its fugitive.” In addition to the detrimental effects of Indira’s years, there are several reasons for the surge in disruptions: the limited efficacy of rules and the disciplinary powers of successive presidents; Parliament’s more heterogeneous composition than in the first three decades; the replacement of a dominant-party system with a fragmented one where coalition governments were the norm; television broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings; and an acceptance that disruptions were part of parliamentary and political culture in India.
The disruptions probably have something to do with the nature of India’s parliamentary democracy, which British Prime Minister Anthony Eden once described as “not a faded imitation of our practice at home, but a scale-up and multiplied reproduction”. did what we never dreamed of.” India’s scale and diversity have contributed to the raucous nature of Indian democracy, which in turn has found expression in Parliament. In fact, while disruptions affect the functioning of Parliament, they are also a barometer of the strength of Indian democracy.
,