73. ZOO IN THE PARLIAMENT
"STONE walls do not a prison make": this is a line old timers are familiar with, because it was quoted by Gandhiji. This is actually a line from the last stanza of the poem 'To Althea, from Prison' written by Richard Lovelace in 1642. The stanza reads:
Stone walls do not a prison make,
- Nor iron bars a cage:
Minds innocent and quiet take
- That for an hermitage.
If I have freedom in my love,
- And in my soul am free,
Angels alone, that soar above,
- Enjoy such liberty.
Public domain.
The poem has a history. England had then made a rule that the Anglican bishops who were heavily involved with church affairs could not exercise temporal control. Lovelace sent a petition to the Parliament against this, and he was imprisoned. He wrote the poem in prison meaning that he was not imprisoned because he was put behind bars in a cell enclosed by stone walls. He was free in his soul and so the cell or such external constraints could not imprison his spirit. The jail was just like a hermitage. In the previous stanza he said that singing the glories of the king did not make him free!
As a matter of fact, during our freedom struggle, our leaders spent long periods in jail. It did have remarkable spiritual effects on Lokamanya Tilak, Sri Aurobindo and Gandhi.
As a matter of fact, during our freedom struggle, our leaders spent long periods in jail. It did have remarkable spiritual effects on Lokamanya Tilak, Sri Aurobindo and Gandhi.
Extending the argument a bit, can we say that sitting in the Parliament makes one a parliamentarian? Is parliament the building- the stone structure?
Parliament evolved in England
England is an amazing country. It did not install a parliamentary system suddenly one day, by some legislation. It evolved over a period of years and there were great struggles. The preparations for and participation in the struggles themselves were great educational experiences, which enriched the participants and the people generally, and prepared them to shoulder higher responsibilities. For instance, they had to struggle for universal adult franchise and women's suffrage for years and the very process of struggle made the aspirants fit for the right or privilege. When someone enters the parliament after such a struggle,he is not entering just a place! Parliament then is a state of mind! It is difficult to describe the feeling in words.
India imported Parliament
In contrast, we in India got adult franchise without lifting a little finger! So, it counts for so little! In fact, the eligible voters have to make efforts to ensure that their names are actually included in the so called 'voters' list'- an absurdity, and sign of muddleheaded bureaucratic bungling. We are eligible and free to vote , but our name may not figure in the voters list! A system in which the juggling fiend of the Election commission "keep the word of promise to our ear, but break it to our hope"- in the words of Shakespeare! [ In the more than 50 years I have been eligible to vote, only once did my name appear in the voters' list- that was 50 years ago!]
One does not become a parliamentarian just by becoming an M.P. Parliament makes the law, and those sitting there ought to qualify for the job. In India, this does not happen as members follow the party line , no matter the subject.
To be, or not to be !
England , and perhaps the US next, are the only countries where national issues attract heated debate across party lines. Should the UK join the European community? Or,should it continue to remain in it? This has been vexing them for half a century and no party is able take and hold a definite line. The first question exercised them for more than a decade in the 60s. Though the UK formally joined the European Common Market in 1973, it was confirmed by a Referendum in 1975. Now, another Referendum is being held on 23 June 2016 as to whether the UK should continue or leave! Thus a question settled by a referendum once is thrown open to another referendum after 40 years! This is fully justified, since the nature of the European community has drastically changed since the days of the Common Market. And a new, younger generation of Britons has fresh perspectives and expectations and they need not be bound by an old decision.
England, mother of parliaments- really!
There are valid arguments for both sides,made by serious and sincere people who know the subject, but it is not easy or even possible for one to say clearly which is more valid. We may hope that the will of the people ,if not necessarily their wisdom, will prevail, as it should in a democracy. It speaks of their true democratic instincts that even though the government is officially committed to remaining in the Union, it has given a chance to the people to express their views directly. Thus, the whole nation will literally decide their future, not just their representatives sitting in Parliament! Not for nothing is it said that England itself is the Mother of Parliaments!
Can we think of such a situation in India? Not at all! Just read the speeches in Parliament. Does any one contribute any idea or sense? Whatever the subject, there is just acrimony, abuse, running into the well of the House, or walk out! [Incidentally, walk-out is India's contribution to parliamentary practice!]
Leaders in Indian parliament
But it was not always like this. In the past we had stalwart parliamentarians like Acharya Kripalani, H.V.Kamath, Nath Pai, Hem Barua, Minoo Masani and other Opposition leaders who were masters of several subjects, would study the matter thoroughly before speaking and would talk sense and debate well. Such was their power that even Nehru,who used to bulldoze the Opposition, had to listen and yield to them. He did not yield on one serious matter- about China; consequently, Nehru cut a sorry figure when China invaded, and he also lost his credibility.
The business of opposition
To sit in Opposition is not a small matter. In England, the Opposition is called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The Opposition leader has a shadow cabinet.
Members of the shadow cabinet specialize in the different fields, and follow the regular Ministers. Thus sitting in Opposition they keep a tab on the govt and become thorough in their subjects. When the govt changes, those who become ministers know the subject already!
[But it does not mean that they are always right or popular. Thus, Hugh Gaitskell had been shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and he became the Chancellor later, but his measures caused a rift in his party and they lost the elections.]
The two-party system helps this process. The duty of the opposition is to oppose, not abuse or pull down the govt or obstruct the process of governance! In India neither is there a two party system, nor will the govt listen to the opposition. [ It is now felt by some observers that two party system is just failing in the UK]
But in India, there is really no national opposition, based on objective factors. The agenda of most parties is based on communal considerations , local issues, and personal equations.
Perhaps, the most serious drawback is absence of consensus even on fundamentals. Thus Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem; Bande Mataram is the national song. But the Muslims will sing neither, and there are parties supporting them. Terrorists bombed the Parliament and the Judiciary gave its verdict; yet there are so called leaders who support the terrorists! "India that is Bharat" is how our country is named in the Constitution; yet there are self styled intellectuals who are allergic to the name and sound of Bharat!
In England, where the Opposition is called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it means that though they may oppose the programmes of the govt of the day, they would not question the Sovereign, who represents the Integrity of the nation, symbolises its soul. Is anything sacred in India for the ruling party or the motley crowd that calls itself the Opposition?
Absence of information in India
There is no attempt by the parties to educate the people on the important issues. How many people really know about the 2G Scam?
How many people really know about the facts of the Vijay Mallya/Kingfisher Airlines case of default of bank loans?
By marirs(Kingfisher Airlines) CC BY-SA 2.0
What are the facts? Where are the facts? All we have are the views of the government and the media monsters! The simple question to ask here is: The total loan involved is said to be Rs.9000 crores. Many banks are involved. This amount is not such as can be approved by any petty official or even by the Chairman. It should have gone to the Board. What did the Board do? There is a government nominee sitting on each Board of the public sector bank as Director. What did he do? How was the loan approved, if the securities were not adequate or documents defective? Why is no one asking these questions? The airlines has been in trouble for over 4 years. What did the banks do then?The point is, on issues of national importance, neither the ruling party nor the opposition is educating the public with facts.The media too play their games, as they did in Bofors. Judiciary is our only hope.
If this is the position in respect of concrete developments, what will our people know about more serious or fundamental theoretical or conceptual issues such as the danger of nuclear power, global warming,the problem posed by bio non-degradable plastics, the danger from GM crops,chemical pollution of food, etc? So, even if a referendum is held here, what will happen in the absence of valid information?
Do/will people understand the implications?
What is sauce for goose.....?
Perhaps there is a deep lesson here to learn. England , where parliamentary democracy developed and flourishes, is a small country with educated citizens. They are generally well-informed on public issues. As intelligent and independent citizens, they do differ significantly and even fiercely on vital issues. But when the moment of decision or action comes they do align themselves on some common approach and continue with national life. There is no bickering or attempts at obstruction or subversion. They are fit for democracy and democracy is made for them! We are imitators of forms, and lack the substance of sense!
In February 1968, speaking at the Indian Merchants' Chamber, Bombay, Sri J.R.D.Tata said:
India is one of the twentieth century's major political anachronisms. The parliamentary system which was evolved over a thousand years of trial and error for the Government of a small,occidental island, and is predicated on the existence and smooth working of a sophisticated two-party system through a single Parliament is sought to be adapted to administering an Asian sub-continent.......
The British system has been worked by generations of trained professionals and highly skilled politicians and administrators. In contrast, most of India's politicians are untrained and inexpert in the complex management of a modern society..........
Up to the early1960s, the strain on the machine was hidden by the dominating personality of a great leader, while a benevolent one-party autocracy maintained a facade of political stability and democracy in action..... the facade has begun to crack and the machine is showing increasing signs of breaking down.
Autocracy and abuse of power
It is nearly half a century since these words were spoken. One is struck by how accurate they have turned out to be! In 1975, the nominal democracy was suspended and Emergency was declared. There is no provision in our great Constitution to prevent such take over by a cracked head!
Somehow, elections were held and democracy was restored by two old leaders: Jayaprakash Narayan and Acharya Kripalani.
But even they could not ensure the smooth functioning of a government, though it had an overwhelming popular mandate! It cracked and fell in two years and we reverted to one party autocratic and dynastic rule, in the name of democracy! It seems people who were in opposition for too long could not govern! It seems our people do not mind what the rulers do, so long as the system is called democracy!
Front cover of a publication from Rupa.
The lesson is that it is not enough to have a nice stone building for the Parliament. Parliament is not the building. People who occupy it must become real parliamentarians, representatives of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment